ContentServer - Asp 23

Journal of Change Management
Vol. 11, No. 2, 133 162, June 2011
Success and Failure In Organizational

Change: An Exploration of the Role
of Values
BERNARD BURNES & PHILIP JACKSON
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK, Jackson Solutions, Liverpool, UK
ABSTRACT One of the most remarkable aspects of organizational change efforts is their low
success rate. There is substantial evidence that some 70% of all change initiatives fail. This
article explores the argument that a potentially significant reason for this is a lack of alignment
between the value system of the change intervention and of those members of an organization
undergoing the change. In order to test this assertion, the article begins by reviewing the change
literature with regard to the impact of values on success and failure. It then examines Graves
Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory and uses this as the basis of a method for
identifying and aligning value systems. The article then presents the results from case studies of
two change initiatives in different organizations. These support both the method and the assertion
that value system alignment may be an important factor in the success of organizational change
initiatives. The article concludes with recommendations for further research.
KEY WORDS : Value systems, organizational change, Graves, ECLET
Introduction
This article explores the argument that a potentially significant reason for the
failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the value system
of the change intervention and of those members of an organization undergoing
the change. In order to undertake this exploration, the article will review the literature on the impact of values on change interventions; develop a method for
measuring these values and designing change interventions which align with
them; and test empirically in two small case studies both the argument and the
method. The success of the two change interventions will be considered in two
Correspondence Address: Bernard Burnes, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street
West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Email: bernard.burnes@mbs.ac.uk
1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/11/02013330 # 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
134
B. Burnes & P. Jackson
respects: first, by assessing the acceptance of the content of the change, i.e. the
nature or type of change being implemented; second, by assessing the acceptance
of the approach taken towards implementation.
Few doubt the importance of organizational change. In the early 1990s,
Hammer and Champy (1993: 23) declared that . . . change has become both pervasive and persistent. It is normality. In reviewing the change literature since
Hammer and Champy made this claim, Burnes (2009a) found that if anything
the speed, magnitude, unpredictability and, consequently, the importance of
change have increased considerably. This view is supported by a recent global
survey by McKinsey & Company (2008) which found that only by changing constantly could organizations hope to survive.
However, the McKinsey survey also found that some two-thirds of all change
initiatives failed. Although this seems to be a staggeringly high rate of failure,
there is much evidence to support it (Beer and Nohria, 2000a). Similar findings
have emerged from surveys by other leading management consultancies such as
Bain and Co (Senturia et al., 2008), by leading academics in the field like Rosabeth Moss Kanter (Kanter et al., 1992) and John Kotter (1996), and from reviews
of the change literature (Smith, 2002, 2003; Burnes, 2009a). Therefore, organizations appear to be faced with a classic paradox: We have to change but most
of our change initiatives fail.
The key question, of course, is why do so many change initiatives fail? Strangely enough, this is a question which has attracted only limited attention (Buchanan et al., 2005). Some writers point to shortcomings in either the planning or
execution of the change process (Burnes and Weekes, 1989; Dent and Goldberg,
1999; Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Hoag et al., 2002). Others identify a lack of
competence or commitment in those commissioning or managing the change
process (Boddy and Buchanan, 1992; Kotter, 1996; Kirkman and Shapiro,
1997; Caldwell, 2003, 2006). However, the problem with such explanations is
that implicitly or explicitly they assume that there is a one best way to
manage change and that failure arises from not adhering to it (Burnes, 1996).
Confusingly, there are quite a few one best way approaches to change
(Collins, 1998; By, 2005). For example, Kanter (Kanter et al., 1992) offered
her 10 commandments for successful change, Pugh (1993) has his four principles
of change and Kotter (1996) put forward his eight-step model. Two, however,
have stood out from the rest. From the 1950s to the 1970s, organization
development (OD) tended to be seen as the best way to manage change
(French and Bell, 1999; Cummings and Worley, 2005). In the 1980s and
1990s, the emergent/processual approach came to dominate the field, at least
among academics (Dawson, 1994; Orlikowski, 1996; Weick, 2000). Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a growing recognition that one or even
two approaches to change cannot cover the vast variety of change situations
(Storey, 1992; Stickland, 1998; Pettigrew, 2000; Burnes, 2009a). As Dunphy
and Stace (1993, p. 905) argued:
. . . managers and consultants need a model of change that is essentially a situational or contingency model, one that indicates how to vary change strategies
to achieve optimum fit with the changing environment.
Success and Failure in Organizational Change
135
If we move from a one best way approach to change to a contingency approach,

this does not invalidate the various shortcomings that researchers have put forward
nor the emphasis placed on the abilities and/or commitment of those who commission and execute change. However, it does indicate that a further factor
needs to be taken into account the congruence between the organization, the
content or type of change it is undertaking and the approach to change it adopts
(Burnes, 2009a).
In order to investigate the degree of congruence, we need to be able to categorize the nature of change initiatives and the situations for which they are seen as
appropriate. Some writers draw attention to the need to match approaches to
change to the volatility of the environment (Kanter et al., 1992; Peters, 1993;
Kotter, 1996). Others draw attention to the need to match approaches to the
type of changes being undertaken (Storey, 1992; Stace and Dunphy, 2001; Beer
and Nohria, 2000b). These writers cite such factors as the size/importance of
the initiative and whether it is aimed at structural or behavioral/cultural
change. Unfortunately, they do not usually link these factors to a range of
approaches to change; rather they tend to have their own one or two preferred
approaches.
There have been attempts to create more comprehensive categorizations of
approaches to change and link them to the situations in which they are most
appropriate. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) argue that approaches to change can
be categorized by the theories which underpin them. They identify four such theories: life-cycle, teleological, dialectical and evolutionary. French and Bell (1999)
and Cummings and Worley (2005) listed the wide array of change tools and techniques embraced by OD and the content of interventions for which they are most
appropriate. Burnes (2009a) produced a categorization of approaches based on the
forms of change for which they are most appropriate and the leadership approach
necessary to apply them successfully. Noticeably, these broader categorizations
also attempt to relate the values which underpin approaches to change to organization values. For example, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) see dialectical-based
approaches as suitable for organizations with an ethos that values power and conflict. For Cummings and Worley (2005), OD interventions are underpinned by a
set of humanistic and democratic values which make them suitable for organizations with similar values. Burnes (2009a) concurs with this point but also goes
on to argue that Tayloristic mechanistic approaches may be more suitable for
organizations with a top-down, command-and-control ethos. The work of these
writers would seem to support the view that the failure of a change initiative is
not caused by poor planning or execution or a lack of competence or commitment
per se; rather the underlying cause is a clash of values between the organization
and the approach to and type of change it has adopted. In many respects, this
explanation is in line with organizational justice and the psychological contract
perspectives, which see active and passive resistance to change occurring
when either the type of change or approach taken towards change interventions
challenge existing organizational and individual values (Schein, 1988,
1989; Wooten and White, 1999; Novelli et al., 1995; Colquitt et al., 2001;
Cropanzano et al., 2001; Rousseau, 2001; Arnold et al., 2005; Cohen and
Keren, 2008).
136
The next section of this article will examine the relationship between values and
organizational change. In so doing, it explores the need to align value systems with
change interventions. This is followed by a review of Graves Emergent Cyclical
Levels of Existence Theory (ECLET) which, we argue, provides the basis of a
method for determining and aligning value systems. The Method section then
describes how we have adapted and applied ECLET for use as an organizational
change method. Following this, the article presents our research, which sought to
test the concept of value system alignment on two organizations undertaking
change interventions. The results show support for the argument that successful
change may be influenced significantly by the degree of alignment between the
values of the organization undertaking the change and the underlying values of
the content and approach to change. The article concludes by arguing, first, that
there is support for considering the degree of value alignment as a potentially
significant factor in the success or failure of change interventions; and second,
that Graves ECLET approach provides a suitable basis of a method for evaluating
and aligning the value systems of organizations with the value systems which
underlie the approaches and content of change interventions.
Value Systems and Organizational Change
Much has been written over the years regarding the need to align organizational
and individual values, usually from the culture perspective (Schein, 1985;
Brown, 1998). The main argument is that effective organizations are ones
where goals and values are congruent and shared by the leadership and staff of
the organization (Ouchi, 1981; Denison and Spreitzer, 1991; Brown, 1998;
Detert et al., 2000; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2004). For example, in looking at
the promotion of ethical behavior, du Plessis (2008) points to the need for
leaders to ensure that the values of the organization and its members are
aligned with the ethical values and behaviors they are seeking to promote. Similarly, Sosik et al. (2009) assert that the importance of values is that they influence
behavior, especially in terms of whether organizational goals are judged as appropriate and the degree of effort to exert in pursuing the goals. Indeed, there has been
a long history of writers drawing attention to the positive relationship between
value alignment, employee commitment and goal achievement (Herzberg et al.,
1956; Werkmeister, 1967; Dubin et al., 1975; Guy, 1984; Elizur, 1996; Cohen
and Keren, 2008).
In terms of organizational change, perhaps the first person to draw attention to
the relationship between value alignment and successful change was Kurt Lewin
in the 1940s (Benne, 1976). Since then, a wide range of studies have cited
organization, group and individual values as important factors in the success of
change interventions (Schwartz and Davis, 1981; Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984;
Mrotek, 2001; Chonko et al., 2002; Bouckenooghe and Devos, 2007; Diefenbach,
2007; Walinga, 2008). Neves and Caetano (2009) maintain that employees who
see that a proposed change intervention is congruent with their own values are
more likely to show commitment and enthusiasm. They go on to state that
Employees commitment to change can therefore be looked at as a function of
the changes fit to employees values . . . (Neves and Caetano, 2009, p. 626).
137
To summarize, there is support for the view that successful change is associated
with the value alignment of three factors: those involved in the change intervention, the objective of the intervention and the approach to change (i.e. the values
underpinning the content of the change and the process by which it is managed).
If the concept of value alignment is valid, then it is not sufficient for organizations to ensure that the objective of the change intervention is congruent with
the organizations values, they would also need to ensure that the approach to
change adopted is congruent. This means that they must be able to identify the
values which underpin different approaches to change. A number of writers
have explicitly linked particular values with particular approaches to change
(Kanter et al., 1992; Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997; Beer and Nohria, 2000b; van
Marrewijk and Werre, 2003). Bouckenooghe and Devos (2007) argue that
where organizations exhibit values such as trust and openness, then an approach
to change in which the process and management of the intervention are participative is likely to be most successful. Wooten and White (1999) argued that the
values which underpin OD make such approaches particularly suitable for organizations with postmodern values. Similarly, Burnes (2009b, 2009c) maintains that
organizations seeking to promote ethical participative behavior are only likely to
be successful if they adopt an approach to change whose values align with such
behavior.
Looking at situations where value system alignment is not present, Detert et al.
(2000) examined the high failure rate of total quality management (TQM) initiatives. They commented that, where the gap between the organizations values and
values of the objective of the change are large, we believe that a change initiative
such as TQM will be very difficult to implement (Detert et al., 2000, p. 858).
Likewise, in seeking to explain why some 70% of business process re-engineering
(BPR) interventions fail, Hammer and Champy (1993) point to the clash between
the values underpinning BPR and the values of the organizations seeking to
implement it.
Returning now to our original question: why do so many change interventions
fail? The above review of the literature shows that, although a wide range of
factors can undermine successful change, a potentially significant factor is the
degree of alignment between the values of the organization, the values of the
objective or content of the change being undertaken and the values underpinning
the approach to change. The extent to which value alignment is a factor would
depend on the relative influence of other factors such as implementation effectiveness, change leadership and so on. This question is not addressed here but will
form part of future research into the influence of value alignment.
In order to test the assertion that value alignment impacts on the success of
change interventions, we need a method for assessing value alignment. The
method needs to incorporate a typology of values, an instrument for assessing
the values of organization members and means of assessing or specifying
approaches to change. As Scott (2002) has shown, there have been many attempts
to create typologies of organizational values. However, there is a great deal of disagreement as to what constitutes an organizational value. For example, Hofstede
et al. (1990) identified just three values, whereas OReilly et al. (1991) identified
54. Also, although some of these authors provide instruments for measuring the
138
posited values, many do not. Even where instruments exist, there are doubts about
their reliability and generalizability; Hofstedes (1980) work, for example, was
drawn from a study of just one international organization IBM.
Nevertheless, there are two typologies which are based on large samples and
appear to have stood the test of time. The first was developed by Rokeach
(1973). He identified 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values which can
be measured by the Rokeach Values Survey. Rokeachs survey instrument has
been widely used and supported by academics and practitioners (Johnson,
1995). The second is Graves ECLET which is based on eight core value
systems that can be measured using the Values Test, a commercially available
psychometric questionnaire. Like Rokeachs typology, Graves ECLET has also
been widely used (Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk, 2004a). There are similarities between the typologies. For example, both are ipsative, which is a limitation in terms of statistical analysis, and neither was developed with
organizational change in mind (though this is the case with most typologies of
values). However, Graves theory has anecdotally been reported (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996) as an effective framework for facilitating
organizational change and, from our perspective, an interesting difference is
that Graves typology is a developmental hierarchy which shows the relationship
between eight core value systems and the motivation to move from one to another.
Rokeach, by contrast, offers a flat typology in which there is no suggested interrelationship or sequence of development between values. We are attempting to
develop a method that can assist organizations to manage change which, for
some, could involve identifying individuals and groups whose values need to be
developed. Therefore, a typology based on a developmental hierarchy is of particular interest as, if validated, it may lead to the ability to predict the next
stage of value development appropriate to a particular organization. Mainly for
this reason, we chose to base our method on Graves ECLET model rather than
Rokeachs work.
Graves Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory
The ECLET approach to organizational value systems was developed from extensive qualitative research carried out by Clare W. Graves in the 1950s and 1960s
(Graves, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1974; Cowan and Todorovic, 2005). Subsequent
research has shown that the value systems approach is applicable to a wide
range of psychosocial systems development (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck
and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; van Marrewijk 2004a,
2004b; Cook, 2008). In this study, the ECLET theory is applied to the design
and evaluation of change interventions for organizational development.
Graves (1966) set out to investigate the causes of human behavior. He had no
preconceived hypothesis but instead used what we would now call grounded
theory to conduct his research (Glaser and Straus, 1967). Between 1952 and
1959, he enrolled over 1000 participants in his research. Independent assessors
were used to evaluate how the participants formulated their opinions, how they
responded to peer pressure and to authority and what, if anything, led them to
139
change their opinion, and what they changed it to. From this, Graves (1966, p. 120)
concluded that
. . . the psychology of the mature human organism is an unfolding or emergent
process marked by the progressive subordination of older behavioural systems to
newer, higher order behavioural systems.
Based on this research Graves was able to develop the hierarchical classification of
human value systems which lies at the heart of his ECLET. In applying ECLET to
organizations, Graves (1966) argued that employees responded best when their
value system was congruent with the value system of those who managed them.
ECLET states that the change and development of culture in organizations
follows an emergent hierarchy of levels. Each new level results in a change in
organizational culture due to a new set of values emerging. Graves theory
holds that psychosocial values exist in groups and organizations based on a
common underlying purpose. If the current value system proves to be ineffective
at coping with changes in the organizations external environment, a new level or
value system emerges which can cope with them. This leads to the development of
a new organizational culture and concomitant changes in behavior.
Therefore, the driving force to move to a more complex value system is the need
to solve new problems that the existing system cannot resolve. Each level in the
hierarchy transcends and includes all levels beneath it and thereby encompasses
greater complexity which in turn allows for greater degrees of freedom in thinking
and behavior.
According to Graves research (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005), mankind has
developed eight core value systems so far (see Table 1). Graves labeled these
with a nomenclature consisting of two letters: AN, BO, CP, etc. The first letter
identifies the external life conditions or existential forces acting on the system.
The second represents the internal psychological response of the system.
Graves argued that the majority of organizations in western society are predominantly centred on DQ and ER values, with a significant number of organizations
moving towards FS (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005). This is in line with Handys
(1986, 1997) work which sees these DQ- and ER-type cultures as dominant and
FS-type as emerging. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, these three
forms, which are further defined below, will be the focus of attention.
DQ: Deny Self Now for Reward Later
This value system is based on the pursuit of the collective good rather than individual reward. Responsibility within the individual is replaced by reliance on and
trust in the organization to provide and protect now and in future in return for compliance with the rules. This value system emerged in organizations at the beginning of the twentieth century as a solution to the labor-control problems created
by the earlier individualistic and exploitative CP value system, in which the leadership style could best be described as management thuggery. Perhaps the best
example of the DQ approach is Frederick Taylors (1911) Scientific Management,
140

Table 1. Summary of Graves value systems hierarchy (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005)
Level
AN
BO
CP
DQ
ER
FS
GT
HU
Value system
Individual: Express self for personal survival, do what you can to look after self, take
whatevers offered. Effective where there is no competition, but growing people numbers
build fear through vulnerability. Security is sought through safety in numbers and leads to
emergence of . . .
Collective: Deny self for family and close relations, safety in numbers, traditional ways and
ancestral traditions and rituals. Priority is to maintain the security and sustainability of the
local community so that the future is the same as the past. Anger at lack of change in the
face of inadequacy leads to emergence of . . .
Individual: Express self for power and immediate gratification. Coercion, superiority and
strength enables satiation of selfish needs and to hell with the rest. Leads to personal
expression and adrenalin-fuelled releases of energy, both positive and negative. Leads to
feudal systems, exploitation and abuse of others, strives for personal (illegitimate) power
and control. Guilt over consequences leads to a desire to conform to agreed behaviours
and emergence of . . .
Collective: Deny self for order and stability, subordinate oneself to the rules of society based
on absolutist principles of the one right way, laws and regulations, obey the appointed
(legitimate) power and authority and accept penal consequences for transgression and the
authority will provide and protect and reward hard work in the long-term. Frustration at
lack of personal recognition and satisfaction in the short-term lead to emergence of . . .
Individual: Express aelf for reward now and the material riches and good life, but not at the
obvious expense of others. Get away with what you can for personal gain now, find the
best way rather than the right way, contingent thinking, flexible approaches, manipulate
and engineer outcomes to suit personal needs and wants. Success brings isolation and
resentment from the have-nots and feelings of loneliness and exclusion lead to
emergence of . . .
Collective: Deny self for equality, sharing and humanity, wealth distribution, charity and
working for humanitarian causes to aid social development and community. All are equal
in the eyes of society, no one person is in control, consensus decision-making, inclusion
and harmony eventually leads to lower efficiencies. Lack of effective progress leads to
emergence of . . .
Individual: Express self, but not at the expense of others. Open-minded systemic thinking
that allows for the integration of all previous value systems in natural flows, an acceptance
of complex/chaotic systems and paradox, stratified democracy, self-gain but also with
preservation of life systems in general, and a recognition that knowledge has the greatest
value and only the right knowledge can provide systemic solutions to the problems of
existence. Frustration at the lack of social action in the light of new knowledge and
understanding leads to emergence of . . .
Collective: Deny self for the benefit of whole world socio-economic systems and
community, deny self for ecological existence and planetary sustainability and the
continual search for knowledge and meaning in the universe so that new understanding
can be applied to enabling a sustainable planetary future.
which he advocated as a rational and fair alternative to what had gone before
(Rose, 1988).
The values that accompany this thinking are about control and order in achieving the collective good. Roles are defined in a clear hierarchy and power resides at
the top. Decisions are taken on a hierarchical basis, and those lower down carry
out orders; in this respect it is similar to traditional military models of
command and control.
141
The management style is formal and autocratic, and DQ employees are compliant and conformist but, because they value uniformity and stability, they can also
be highly resistant to change. Change is driven from the top through amendments
to rules, procedures and policies. However, the need to consult employee representatives and trade unions who act to maintain fairness and inclusion means
that change is a slow and unsure process. The scientific rational approach to
change advocates a hierarchical top-down management style and rigid adherence
to rules, policies and procedures as the one-right-way of working (see Burnes,
2009a) and is, therefore, likely to be the most appropriate for DQ organizations.
This denial of the right of the individual to freedom of choice is especially analogous to the DQ principle deny self now for reward later if the intended outcome
of top-down directives are seen as beneficial to the whole organization and contribute to stability and long-term job security. Nevertheless, because this rigidity
leads to lack of flexibility and innovativeness, DQ organizations find it difficult to
respond to rapidly changing circumstances and more nimble competitors. Consequently, in order to remain competitive, a point comes when they need to move to
the next level of value system in order to replace compliance with competitiveness
and passivity with initiative.
ER: Express Self for Reward Now in a Calculating Fashion at the Expense of Others
This value system is based on the psychological rationalization of competitiveness. Competition is seen as winlose, though it is often presented as win win
less. ER is about beating the competition, whether that is other organizations
or co-workers, and it is individualistic rather than collective. Success can bring
performance-related rewards for everyone in the organization, but individuals
seek to get more than their fair share. Therefore, ER employees will seek to
manipulate the reward system to favor themselves. ER employees will resist compliance, paying only scant lip service to the rules, and will seek autonomy and
freedom in their role.
Many modern change interventions have been developed especially for ER-type
organizations seeking competitive advantage. These include business process
re-engineering, operational value analysis, activity-based costing, outsourcing,
customer relations management, etc. These approaches are designed to separate
the effective parts of the organization from the ineffective, and invariably lead
to winners and losers. Such approaches, which disregard the principle of collective
involvement, would meet strong resistance from DQ organizations, but be effective in ER organizations provided that any changes are seen as supporting ER
values on both a personal and organizational level.
ER organizations are driven by competitiveness but, if taken to extremes this
can lead individuals to pursue their own self-interest above all else. The result
is that a few individuals can gain most of the rewards with the rest falling by
the wayside. This leads to three main pressures for change:
(1) The fewer and fewer haves sense an increasing resentment from the growing
numbers of have nots.
142
(2) The profit at any cost mentality has damaging consequences for the organization, its customers, suppliers and ultimately for the natural environment.
(3) The haves find less acceptance and fewer opportunities for enjoying their
accumulated personal wealth.
These pressures lead to the need for organizations to move up to the next level of
value system.
FS: Deny Self for Acceptance by Others Now
This value system is based on a rebalancing of the have have not divide
through the redistribution of wealth and the growing acceptance of equality,
inclusion and humanitarianism. It represents a return of the importance of recognizing the collective through, for example, team performance rather than performance of the individual. Individuals act in a way to make themselves acceptable,
they avoid excessive personal achievement and conflict and strive for balance,
harmony and inclusion. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the defining values of the FS organization. Exploitative business practices are replaced
with Fair Trade schemes that help suppliers to be productive and efficient and
lead to agreements over margin, and contracts that give them longer-term security.
This enables suppliers to invest in operational improvements and increase sustainability. FS consumers agree to pay a little more if it means everybody is treated
fairly, and gradually this becomes the new norm accompanied by a growing
desire to avoid paying less if it means somebody somewhere is being exploited.
FS organizations are anti-greed and anti-hierarchy. Leaders see themselves as
equal members of the team and that the role of leading is just another of the
jobs that needs to be done. They are leaders with humility and equality.
Any changes to the organization have to be seen as supporting social and collective equality. ER-type change initiatives described above can be effective but
the language used to describe them must be appropriate to FS values. For
example, the following are two ways to describe the same change:
Our objective is to reorganize our business to improve the effectiveness of our
service delivery by making better use of the resources.
Our objective is to increase profitability and shareholder return by downsizing.
The first is a statement driven by the intent to make better use of existing resources
to improve business effectiveness. Effectiveness could be measures by multiple
bottom lines, for example: environmental impact, social responsibility, customer
and employee satisfaction, as well as and not subverted by business growth
and profitability. The second statement is driven by the sole intent to increase profitability without regard for the impact on other bottom lines or resources as evidenced by the willing and open intention to downsize. In an FS organization,
the first description is likely to be accepted, whereas the second would be resisted.
By contrast, an ER organization would be more likely to respond positively to the
second statement.
143
The downside of FS organizations is that consensus decision-making and conflict avoidance can undermine competitiveness. The absence of constructive conflict and challenge stifles creativity. The mounting frustration at excessive
harmony and the often resulting lack of productivity and progress leads to the
emergence of yet another value system, GT. However, for the purposes of this
study, we focus on the DQ, ER and FS value systems.
A word of caution: Graves maintained that no organization or person is ever
subject to just a single value system, but is likely to be influenced simultaneously
by at least three: the previous dominant system, the current dominant system and
the next emerging system. He saw ECLET as a transcend and include hierarchy
of values in which a person or organization appears to be operating from a single
value system but, in response to external pressures, may regress to a behaviour
system lower in the hierarchy (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005, pp. 29 30). Consequently, when determining an appropriate approach to change, it is necessary to
know the value system profile of those involved and the degree to which it is
uniform and stable. This allows approaches to change to be tailored to the value
system of the organization (Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre,
2003).
As can be seen, there is strong evidence that ECLET is a tried, tested and appropriate means for identifying and assessing values (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck
and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; van Marrewijk 2004a, 2004b;
Cook, 2008). We now show how it can be used as the basis of the method for
designing change interventions in order to ensure value alignment.
Method
From our review of the change literature, we developed the idea that one important
reason for the failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the
value system of the objective and the approach to the change intervention and
the values system of those members of the organization undergoing the change.
The purpose of this article is to explore this idea further by utilizing a method
based on Graves ECLET. The method will assess value alignment as a tool to
help design effective change interventions. In order to do this, and to evaluate
the method itself, it was applied to two small change interventions delivered to
two groups in separate organizations:
Group A is a project team based in the north west of England, made up of 11
members, working within a national charitable organization;
Group B is the management team, consisting of 13 members, of a privately owned
marketing organization also located within the north west of England.
In order to conduct these case studies, it was necessary to gather three essential
pieces of information:
(1) The value system of each group. This was determined using the Values Test, a
commercially available psychometric questionnaire (Spiral Dynamics Group;
www.onlinepeoplescan.net).
144
(2) The value system of the intervention used with each group, including the
delivery style of the intervention and the objective or content of the change.
This was determined by a qualitative examination of the description of the
intervention approach and its agreed objectives.
(3) The effectiveness of the intervention. This was determined from quantitative
and qualitative feedback data collected shortly after the intervention.
The Value System of Each Group
The Values Test was used to determine the value system of each group. The
Values Test consists of 20 items: each item comprises a question followed by
seven possible responses. Each response is representative of one of the seven
value systems being assessed, and participants are asked to distribute 15 points
across the seven responses according to which they think are most appropriate
to themselves. The Values Test is therefore an ipsative assessment instrument
in that participants are forced to make a choice between value systems in response
to each item. All 15 points can be allocated to one response, or the points can be
distributed more widely. Participants are therefore expressing a preference as to
which value system is most important to them in the response to each item.
Of the 20 items, items 1 10 are worded as positive statements, and items 11 20
are similar items except for being expressed negatively. Therefore, the report
includes acceptance scores from items 1 to 10, i.e. scores for each response
which indicate which value systems the participant agrees with, and rejection
scores from items 11 to 20, i.e. scores for each response which indicate the
value systems that the participant actively indicates are not important to them.
The group reports show the average score for each response from all participants
in the group. The reports and a description of their meaning for each group are discussed in the Findings section.
Values Test Reliability and Validity Data
Validity and reliability data of this test are supplied by the test provider and can be
seen to be reasonable in terms of acceptable standards for psychometrics (Jackson,
2009). Also, two independent studies exist that support the statistical validity of
the Values Test (Hurlbut, 1979; Holwerda and Karsten, 2006). In addition, the
Values Test has been used extensively and successfully in organizational and nonorganizational settings, which serves to support the construct validity of the test
(Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996; Van Marrewijk, 2003,
2004a, 2004b).
The Hurlbut (1979) study used a values test that did not include items associated
with the HU values system; as HU values are not relevant to the present study, the
Hurlbut results are considered relevant. Hurlbut used a sample size of 4,029 participants and determined split half reliability of 0.91 (N 105) and 0.88 (N
2,220). Content validity was determined by asking directors of the National
Values Centre (Texas, USA), to examine and make recommendations for the
instrument which was used on a sample of 30 participants to predict values test
145
scores. Concurrent validity of 0.88 was found by correlating predicted scores with
actual scores from the test instrument.
Holwerda and Karstens study (2006) at the University of Amsterdam determined reliability and validity data for the Values Test using a sample size of
40. Using the same sample two months apart they determined a test retest
reliability of 0.66 for acceptance scores and 0.62 for rejection scores which are
considered acceptable for psychometrics.
Consequently, there appears to be sufficient reassurance that the test is both
reliable and valid for the type of study we are undertaking (Jackson, 2009).
The Value System of the Intervention Used with Each Group
This can be established either after an intervention, to find the degree of alignment with the organizations values, or before, to ensure that the intervention is
designed to align with the organizations values. As this was a real-time study,
we chose the latter course of action. We began by constructing a template of
key themes for each value system (Table 2). This was derived from Graves published work (Graves 1966, 1970, 1971; Cowan and Todorovic, 2005) using an
approach based on a template method as described by Crabtree and Miller
(1999) and as specifically developed by King (1998). Having already determined
the value system of Group A and Group B, we proceeded to use Table 2 to
design interventions which aligned with these. Tables 3a and 3b describe the
two interventions. For example, reference to Table 3a (Group A) shows that
the intervention content was aligned with FS values with respect to its equalitarian and anti-competitive stance. It also aligned with FS values in terms of
the emphasis placed on the acceptance of multiple perspectives and individual
differences and diversity. In addition, the approach to delivery also emphasized
equality: there was no lecturing (which would imply hierarchy through superior
knowledge) but rather the facilitation of equal sharing of knowledge using a
coaching style of delivery to reach consensus conclusions in which the facilitator
was considered an equal participant in the delivery process. Time was given to
allow each member to contribute and all opinions were accepted without
judgment as to right or wrong. Feedback comments highlighted that time
spent learning about each others differences was almost more important than
anything else.
By contrast, reference to Table 3b (Group B) shows that this intervention was
aligned with ER values with respect to its focus on achieving business performance improvement and competitive advantage of individuals for career development. Although some of the content was similar to that of Group A, the
delivery style differed markedly. Efficient use of time was paramount: almost
half of the delivery involved some form of lecturing to get knowledge across as
fast as possible, although it is interesting as will be seen later that lecturing
received negative feedback with this group, who preferred self-procurement of
knowledge individually through experiences had during the intervention. The
group was less accepting of time spent listening to all perspectives, preferring
individuals to form their own interpretation of each subject and moving quickly
onto the next.
146

Table 2. Key themes of Graves DQ, ER and FS value systems
Graves DQ system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Deny self now for reward later

Positivism and absolutism
Find the one right way
Stability
Obeisance to higher power
Authoritarian dogmatic employee control
Rule-following
Compliance with others
Acceptance of hierarchy/do not question
Accept judgment from superiors
Accept guilt and punishment
Autocratic decision-making
Modal operators of necessity
Moral righteousness
Graves ER system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Express self for reward now

Multiplistic opportunities
Find the best way, survival of the fittest
Change to achieve more is OK
Play to authority figures 6
Materialistic control/employee utilisation
Rule-challenging
Manipulation of others maximum output at minimum cost
Avoid being controlled manage up the hierarchy
Contingency management
Deny guilt and punishment
Autonomous decision-making
Modal operators of possibility
Secular scientism
Graves FS system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Deny self now for acceptance by others now

Relativistic sociocentrism
Find the acceptable way by consensus
Change to create equality
Shared power/rotating leadership
Cooperative control/employee involvement and motivation
Rules are for guidance
Meet needs of others
Equalitarian authority - flatten the hierarchy
Cooperative management
Avoid punishment and guilt understand all perspectives
Consensual decision-making
Searching for acceptability
Humanitarianism
The Effectiveness of the Intervention
The effectiveness of each intervention was assessed on the basis of each groups
response to questions about the usefulness and suitability of the content of the
intervention and the way it was delivered and the extent to which participants
147
were willing to change as a result of the intervention. The long-term effectiveness

as measured by the success of actual organizational change resulting from the
intervention was not measured in this study, but may be revisited in future
research. The use of a questioning approach with participants to assess the effectiveness of the intervention is validated by examples of certain aspects of change
content and change approach in this study being rejected. By measuring the effectiveness of the intervention in this way, we have more specifically measured the
strength of the intent to change rather then the extent of actual change.
Table 3a. A description of the interventions delivered to Group A according to (1) objectives, (2)
delivery and (3) content
Group A Intervention
This was a training intervention primarily designed to support people working in a charitable concern
who deal with people in difficult circumstances. The intervention was also designed to help the
group work together more effectively as a team by developing self-awareness and mutual
understanding.
(1) Program objectives
To develop: Improvements in effectiveness measured by perception of team communications,
openness in discussions and greater degrees of trust and sharing, and improved effectiveness in
dealing with client cases by having a greater understanding of individual differences and stages
of value system development.
More specifically. . .
self-awareness through an appreciation of individual differences;
awareness of others through an appreciation of multiple perspectives;
knowledge of a range of psychological models (including Value Systems) affecting human
behavior;
ability to apply the above to helping others (external clients) in specific difficult circumstances
through case studies;
ability to apply the above to further internal development of the group working together as a team.
(2) Delivery style
The delivery consisted of eight one-day workshops. Each was informal and held at the groups
premises in a common-room environment seated on small sofas in a circular arrangement with the
workshop deliverers sitting as equal members of the group. There was little presentation material,
mostly hand-drawn on a flipchart supported by a few handouts. The underlying motive of the
sessions was to help the group to apply the intervention content externally to their clients, often
prejudiced individuals and groups in society, and themselves. Contribution of existing expertise
from group members was actively encouraged as each group member played an equal role in the
learning process. No judgment was made of any different perspectives held by any of the group
members and all points of view were respected and considered valid.
(3) Intervention content
The program content consisted of a series of workshops exploring Myers Briggs personality
dimensions; aspects and models of personal motivation including Maslow, McClelland and
motivation models from Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP); and latterly Graves Value Systems
and their application to participant self-assessment and personal growth and client case studies.
The material was presented as being an optional perspective on the subject and not the definitive
answer, essentially consistent with a subjectivist relativistic philosophy. Ideas, principles and
models were put forward as discussion points and explored through interactive conversation
amongst equals such that each member of the group determined their own perception of the
meaning of the materials.
148
Table 3b. A description of the interventions delivered to Group B according to (1) objectives, (2)
delivery and (3) content
Group B Intervention
This was a training intervention primarily designed to improve the business performance of a private
sector marketing company by developing the management and leadership understanding and
performance of members of the companys leadership team.
(1) Program objectives
To develop: Improved business performance through better understanding and effectiveness of
communication processes, self-management, self-motivation and personal awareness and
leadership styles for running the business, and dealing effectively with employees and getting the
most from them.
More specifically. . .
building rapport and developing relationships with customers and employees;
understanding perception and reality and seeing multiple perspectives;
dealing with awkward conversations;
directive vs coaching styles of leadership;
individual differences, self-motivation;
personal prioritization and time management;
styles of leadership;
empowering and motivating others;
influencing, delegating and coaching
(2) Delivery style
The delivery consisted of three one-day sessions in which the atmosphere was open and relaxed and
conducive to self-disclosure. Delivery style was generally semi-formal set by smart-casual office
wear and delivered off the companys premises in a comfortable hotel training room arranged with
a horseshoe table and seating plan. Training material was presented largely using PowerPoint
supported by flipcharts for capturing discussion points. Materials were delivered using a range of
styles including experiential activities, taught theory, group discussions and reviews. The
underlying motive of the training sessions was to improve individual and group performance and,
therefore, overall business performance.
(3) Intervention content
The content was delivered under a range of philosophical styles from the objectivist one right
answer to modernist contingent theories focussed on finding the best way and postmodern
relativistic material allowing each person to define their own way. The content itself can be seen
from the bullet point objectives above and included principles of leadership taken from
contingency theory, transformational leadership, situational leadership and principles of coaching,
empowering and employee engagement as means of gaining improved employee and, therefore,
business performance.
For Group A, a focus group discussion, facilitated by one of the authors, was
conducted which allowed specific aspects of the intervention to be explored
through questions such as: what was it about this particular intervention you
enjoyed or didnt enjoy? Care was taken not to guide or prompt responses by
the use of key words or phrases. The focus group dialog was recorded and assessed
for positive and negative aspects of the intervention (Table 4). An individual
rating questionnaire was also completed by each participant to assess various
aspects of the intervention (Table 5).
For Group B, the organization preferred to undertake their own qualitative
review of the intervention. The review was facilitated by the organizations
149
Table 4. Group A: focus group feedback

Comments are reported in the first person and reasons for importance paraphrased from the text.
Content was delivered in a non-judgmental way, there was no feedback to imply that any
perspective was right or wrong.
Important because it allowed participants to feel they would be accepted as themselves, it was
liberating and freeing from an otherwise commonly held perception of how you are supposed to be
at work.
The MBTI in particular was delivered in a way that was personalized to me even though the
feedback was done in a group session.
Important because it allowed me the space to explore myself as an individual and be accepted by
others for the preferences I hold.
The idea of buying into common (organizational and team) values is something that exists in
parallel with the acceptance that each individual is uniquely different.
Important because understanding were all different and knowing and accepting those differences is
more helpful than pretending were all the same our common values are those of the
organization, individually were different.
In the sessions we were all treated as equal and not according to our roles in the organization.
Important because as people we are all equal and we all have equal but different needs for our own
development. It is pointless to treat people differently because of their grade in the hierarchy.
Metaphorically the team members can be represented as a group of equal-sized little houses
arranged circularly in a village, each one different on the outside, painted a different color,
unique on the inside, linked to each other by a network of criss-crossing paths and open gates and
bounded by the identity of the village and open to the outside world.
Important because we are all equal and work together playing different roles working towards
achieving the same aim.
The delivery allowed (gave permission for) us all to be different and equal.
Important because if we had been forced into an idealized model, the training would not have been
accepted.
We never had the sense that an agenda was being forced and you picked up whenever someone
wasnt getting something.
Important because it meant you (the trainers) followed our needs, not yours.
You (the trainers) were not more important than I am too often the trainer believes they are and
that they know best and that you (the trainers) were not in competition with each other.
Important because equality extends to everyone, trainers included. We each play different roles but
none are more important than others.
training coordinator, who collected feedback statements and identified key themes
among the group. Although we were not present at the review, our understanding
is that the questions put were similar to those we used with Group A, i.e. what was
considered positive and negative about the intervention. A feedback report was
prepared and made available for the purposes of this study (Tables 6a and 6b).
Findings Group A
The Value System of Group A
All 11 participants of Group A completed the Values Test instrument (Figure 1).
Reference to Figure 1 shows a strong acceptance of the FS value system and a
rejection of the egocentric CP system. There is a potential for conflict in the
DQ value system because it can be seen to show both acceptance and rejection
scores. Similarly, there is a degree of divided intensity in the ER system, the
150

Table 5. Group A: rating questionnaire results.
Item
Module 1. MBTI
1. I enjoyed learning about this subject
2. This personality model made sense to me
3. I think there is a benefit to learning about
personality types
4. I would recommend learning about this
subject to others
5. I felt that this personality model applied to
me
6. I believe this personality model would apply
to other people in the world I live in
7. I would like to do more of this type of
training
8. I can see how understanding this model has
helped me in my interactions with others
9. I can recall specific examples of interactions
with others where I have applied this model
effectively
10. Overall I would rate the usefulness of this
training as __/100
Meana
SDa
Mean
SD
9.83
9.33
0.41
0.82
9.83
0.41
8.83
0.98
9.50
0.84
9.33
1.03
9.00
1.10
9.33
1.03
9.33
1.03
94.17
9.37
0.33
3.76
0.85
0.27
Mean
SD
Module 2. Motivation Maslow; Power/Achievement/Affiliation;

Towards/Away From and Sameness/Difference
9.50
0.84
2. This motivational theory made sense to me
9.00
1.26
types of motivation
9.33
1.21
subject to others
9.17
1.33
5. I felt that this motivational theory applied to me 91.17
1.17
Data re-analysed with
6. I believe this motivational theory would
participant No
apply to other people in the world I live in
9.00
1.26
removed:
training
9.33
1.03
8.50
8. I can see how understanding this subject has
9.33
1.21
9.00
with others where I have applied this subject
effectively
9.00
1.26
8.67
training as __/100
91.67
8.18
8.83
9.20
1.18
Meana
0.18
0.15
SDa
Module 3. Value Systems Presentation and personal feedback
8.57
1.27
2. This subject made sense to me
8.29
1.11
8.67
9.00
1.05
0.89
1.03
0.75
0.82
1.10
(Continued)
151
Table 5. Continued
Item
I think there is a benefit to learning about
value systems
subject to others
5. I felt that value systems applied to me
6. I believe value systems would apply to other
people in the world I live in
7. I would like to do more of this type of training
8. I can see how understanding this model has
effectively
training as __/100
Meana
SDa
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
8.57
1.40
8.83
1.17
8.29
8.29
1.38
1.60
8.83
1.17
8.14
8.00
1.57
2.83
8.00
2.83
7.43
2.70
83.57
8.17
0.35
19.94
1.81
0.66
90.83
8.74
0.22
5.85
1.04
0.19
real life
8.50
1.76
9.00
1.41
3.
Module 4. Case studies to apply value systems to

2. The application of value systems to real life
made sense to me
applying value systems
subject to others
5. I felt that the process of applying value
systems to real life applied to me
6. I believe that applying value systems to real
life would apply to other people in the world
live in
training
8. I can see how understanding applying value
systems to real life has helped me in my
interactions with others
effectively
training as __/100
Meana
SDa
8.76
1.75
9.20
1.30
8.83
1.83
9.40
1.34
8.67
1.75
9.20
1.30
8.67
2.16
9.40
1.34
7.83
2.48
8.40
2.30
8.17
2.40
9.00
1.41
8.50
2.51
9.40
1.34
7.67
3.20
8.80
1.79
84.50
8.39
0.41
22.88
2.21
0.49
93.40
9.09
0.33
7.77
1.51
0.33
Note: Results were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 indicates very strongly agree. aMean and SD of each
modules results include items 1 to 9 only.
system that is related to personal gain, competition, success and goal achievement.
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it can be seen that Group A was primarily
driven by FS values, was divided about DQ and ER, and strongly rejected CP. In
terms of intervention alignment, by reference to Figure 1, Group A would be
152
predicted to align most strongly to an intervention based on FS values, be open to

GT and HU concepts and possibly give a mixed response to material and delivery
approach associated with ER and DQ values.
The Value System of the Intervention
Table 2 was used to design an intervention which would align with Group As
value system as determined by the Values Test instrument. Therefore, the intervention objectives, delivery style and content were designed to be consistent
with the FS value system.
For Group A, the effectiveness of the intervention was measured using both a
focus group and a rating questionnaire. The focus group was recorded and the
Table 6a. Group B: change intervention report section A
Section A: Module-specific feedback
Module 1. Communication workshop
Positive comments:
Role plays and open forum discussions
Suggested improvements:
Include relevant experience and examples relating to [our organization]
This workshop could have been done in half a day
Prefer more focus on activities, less on theory
More role plays to gain benefit from experience and maintain energy levels
Module 2. Self-management workshop
Positive comments:
Workshop and practical elements worked well. Interesting contents.
Overall very good, interest can be lost when the training turns to lecture mode
More role-play/interactions to keep up the energy
The contents of this day could have been delivered in half a day
Module 3. Leadership Part 1
Positive comments:
Contents and activities were enjoyable and relevant to job roles
Some examples were dragged out and not really that relevant to the course content and [this
organization]
More contents and structure to the course
More contents could have been covered in the allocated time
Could have been faster-paced
Need to maintain the energy and use new materials as much as possible
General
More contents to be covered during the day
More practical/role-play activities
Quicker paced
Maintain higher energy levels
153
Table 6b. Group B: change intervention report section B

Section B: General comments based on feedback on three modules:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The concept of personal development fits comfortably with each member of the team, i.e. each
person is comfortable with the idea that it is possible to learn to understand themselves and to
learn what they can do to improve.
They prefer the trainer not to lecture them with facts and information.
They prefer the trainer to support their learning by giving them opportunities for learning
through experiences and allowing self-discovery through open discussions.
The best learning points are the ones that each person works out for themselves during activities
and open discussion as being the most relevant.
Learning most preferably comes from self-discovery through experience, followed by learning
from each other through discussion and is least preferred through being lectured.
They each accept that they are individually responsible for their own learning and development
and its not up to the trainer to hand it to them i.e. they would not like the trainer simply to
give out answers or tell them the right way to do things.
Examples of different situations in different organizations are thought of as being not necessarily
relevant to [this organization] all situations are different therefore examples should be relevant
to [this organization].
It is important that the training is work-related and enables them to deliver a more effective
personal and/or work performance.
Learning points that are not directly relevant to improving personal performance or work
performance are not really of interest.
It is important to get the most out of the time invested in training.
It is important that efficient use is made of the training time available and that pace and energy
are maintained throughout.
Novel and original or new material is preferred to maintain the energy and interest.
Training should ideally move at a quick pace and involve a high level of personal active
participation learning happens more by personal experience than by watching or observing
others.
Punishment or penalties for poor learning performance or subsequent poor work performance
would be counterproductive and not welcomed.
text qualitatively interpreted for key themes by the researcher to identify positive
and negative aspects of the intervention. The key themes which emerged from the
transcript are recorded in Table 4 where it can be seen that the FS content and
approach used to deliver to this group were congruent with the values of the
group members.
Because the focus group was facilitated by one of the authors, in order to
counter any researcher bias, which could naturally be expected in such a qualitative analysis, the participants who took part in the focus group also completed a
quantitative rating questionnaire for the intervention (Table 5).
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of the responses from seven participants who completed the questionnaire. The mean and standard deviation for
each module are also shown. The results indicate that the intervention was generally
viewed very positively with an average overall rating .90%. It can be seen that
modules 1 and 2 were more favorably viewed than modules 3 and 4.
From an inspection of the raw scores (not shown), it appeared that the low
scores for modules 3 and 4 may be due to participant 4 who had rated their satisfaction with these modules as extremely low. For the purpose of determining the
154
Figure 1. Group A Values Test raw scores.
influence of participant 4 on the ratings of modules 3 and 4 the data was reanalyzed with participant 4s data removed the result is also shown in Table 5 as
labeled. This resulted in the mean score increasing from 8.17 to 8.74 for
module 3 and 8.39 to 9.09 for module 4. Standard deviations reduced substantially
also changing from 1.81 to 1.04 in module 3 and 2.21 to 1.51 in module 4. On this
basis, it can be seen that the substantially different results for these two modules
produced by participant 4 resulted in a noticeable shift in the mean and standard
deviation of the group result. Closer investigation of the individual results for participant 4 revealed a mean rating for module 3 of 4.78 out of 10 and module 4 of
4.89 out of 10, both of which are between 2 and 3 standard deviations from the
original mean of means and substantially more than 3 standard deviations
beyond the mean of means obtained by recalculating with participant 4s data
removed.
Having established that participant 4 appeared to differ in their assessment of
modules 3 and 4 compared with the rest of the group, we became curious as to
whether participant 4s values profile might reveal an explanation. In comparing
participant 4s individual value system profile (Figure 2) with the average for
155
Figure 2. Participant 4 (Group A) Values Test raw scores.
Group A (Figure 1), it can be seen that the acceptance response to the DQ value
system is substantially stronger for participant 4. Therefore, there appears to be a
strong suggestion of a relationship between participant 4s low rating score for
modules 3 and 4 and the uncharacteristically high acceptance and low rejection
of the DQ value system. The content of modules 3 and 4 was based on Graves
ECLET and its application to personal change in organizations. According to
Graves research (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005) it is typical of participants with
a strong preference for DQ values to reject material involving value systems
theory and application. It is suggested that this is due to conflict between the
DQ preference for structure and order and the relativistic pluralism of value
systems theory.
In summary, what we can see is that there was substantial alignment between
the values of the intervention and the values of the Group. We can also see that
there was substantial agreement that the intervention was a success and that the
distinct possibility exists that much of this can be attributed to the alignment of
values. It can also be seen that where there were concerns, these arose because
the Group values were not homogeneous (i.e. participant 4).
156
Findings Group B
The Value System of Group B
The Values Test instrument was completed by 10 of the 13 members of Group

B. From Figure 3, it can be seen that Group B have a very a different value
system to Group A. There is a substantial acceptance of the ER system and a rejection of CP, which might be as expected from a profit-focused private-sector
limited company. This combines with a low acceptance and rejection of GT
values and substantial rejection of the HU value system (Table 1). This suggests
that this group is primarily focused on itself, as opposed to being directed at more
holistic and systemic collective and social concerns.
The Values Test used in this study has questionable discriminant validity
between BO and FS (and HU) value systems and this is likely to be due to item
construction (Jackson, 2009). FS values refer to all of humankind without limit
or exception, whereas BO values refer to the local community, tribe, extended
family or immediate team or department. Therefore, when items relating to FS
values are presented in the confined context of a small organization, they can
Figure 3. Group B Values Test raw scores.
157
appear similar to items describing BO values. Furthermore, BO values are unexpected in an organization of this type which is centered on ER values. Consequently, it can reasonably be argued that the item scores for BO are attributable
to the FS value system. This discriminant validity question is likely to have
appeared with Group B because their focus of attention, owing to the nature of
the organization, was primarily inward on the performance of their own business,
thus leading participants to interpret the FS items as referring inwardly to their
own organization. This is consistent with the above comments referring to
Group Bs rejection of GT and HU values. The discriminant validity question
did not appear as an issue with Group A. It can be argued that this is due to the
primarily external social focus of this charitable organization which leads participants to interpret FS survey items in the wider social context they are intended.
Therefore, reference to Figure 3 shows that Group B aligns with ER values and
slightly less so to FS (if we include the BO scores), but will reject material and
delivery associated with DQ, GT and HU. It would also be expected to reject
material associated with CP and BO.
The Value System of the Intervention
As with Group A, Table 2 was used to design an intervention which would align
with Group Bs value system as determined by the Values Test instrument. Therefore, the intervention objectives, delivery style and content were designed to be
consistent with the ER and FS value systems, weighted in favor of ER followed
by FS. Additionally, for practical purposes, some of the material was communicated with a DQ delivery style (i.e. lecturing).
For Group B, the organizations training coordinator facilitated a group discussion

to review the intervention and produce a feedback report (Tables 6a and 6b). This
is in two sections: Table 6a, workshop-specific feedback; and Table 6b, general
comments on style of delivery applying across all thre workshops.
The feedback indicated that Group B did not like being lectured to, listening to
theory or receiving penalties for poor learning. Instead, they preferred those
aspects of the change intervention which were fast-paced, made efficient use of
time, included practical activity for self-procured knowledge, kept energy high
and used new novel materials, etc. This contrasts with Group A which preferred
a slower paced delivery and longer sessions in order to ensure the maximum
understanding for each participant.
In terms of value systems, according to Tables 6a and 6b, there was a clear
acceptance of those parts of the intervention that aligned with the ER value
system and the FS value system (although slightly less so) and that the delivery
style associated with DQ (being lectured) was rejected. For example, the comments in Table 6a relating to speed of delivery are consistent with ER values relating to performance and efficiency and align also with Table 6b comments which
related to fast-paced facilitation and effective use of time.
158
Similarly, there are also comments in both Tables 6a and 6b regarding a dislike
of lecturing which are supportive of a rejection of DQ values. There are comments
in Table 6b supportive of FS values being important, e.g. the emphasis on selfdevelopment and self-awareness. However, the preference for speed and effective
use of time clashes with the FS value of putting people before performance and
adds support to the view that Group Bs dominant value system is ER.
In summary, as with Group A, what we can see is that there was substantial
alignment between the values of the intervention and the values of the group.
We can also see that there was substantial agreement that the intervention was
a success and the distinct possibility that much of this can be attributed to the
alignment of values. In addition, it can be seen that where there were concerns,
these arose where the intervention values were not fully aligned with the group
values, i.e. the dislike of being lectured to.
Conclusion
This article has explored the argument that a potentially significant reason for the
failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the value system of
the change intervention and of those members of an organization undergoing the
change. It began by reviewing the literature on organizational change. This
showed that many factors had been cited as reasons for the high failure rate of
change initiatives; these included poor planning and a lack of competence by
those who managed change. However, it was argued that underpinning these
factors was the issue of the appropriateness of the content and the approach to
change used by organizations, and whether there was value alignment between
the two. This was followed by a discussion of Graves ECLET from which we
concluded that it provided a suitable basis for identifying and aligning value
systems. The Method section described how ECLET was adapted and applied
to two change interventions in order to test its appropriateness as a method for
determining value alignment and as a means of testing the argument for value
alignment being a potentially significant factor affecting the degree of success
achieved in change initiatives.
The findings from the two interventions showed support for the proposition that
value alignment may play a significant role in whether change interventions are
accepted by members of an organization and in the intention of those members
to respond and implement the change. In the case of Group A, it was established
that its value system was predominantly FS, and the intervention was designed to
align with this. The feedback from the group indicated that the intervention was
highly suited to their needs and had effectively enabled them to develop (i.e.
change) as a group. One participant who was predominantly DQ was found to
reject the material strongly associated with FS values. Group Bs value system
was predominantly ER followed by FS. Once again, the intervention was designed
to align with this. Feedback from the group indicated a positive assessment for
aspects of the intervention that aligned with ER values, a less positive assessment
for those aspects that aligned with FS values and a negative assessment for aspects
of the intervention that aligned with DQ values.
159
Therefore, the findings show some support for the argument that value alignment can play a significant role in the acceptance of change interventions by
organization members. In addition to providing support for this argument, our
research has also found that the ECLET-based method is a potentially useful
tool for determining an organizations value system and ensuring that the values
which underpin all elements of the approach to change the objectives,
content and delivery style are aligned with it. For the design and management
of organizational change projects, we believe these findings are potentially significant. However, we must sound a number of cautionary notes:
(1) Although our research shows some support for the importance of value system
alignment, there are other factors which also affect the success of change projects, as the literature review showed.
(2) The findings are based on only two small-scale change interventions.
(3) ECLET has been around for a long time but was not constructed as a tool for
the design/alignment of change interventions.
It follows that more work is necessary in order to assess the arguments for both
value alignment and the ECLET-based method. In particular, further research is
required:
(1) To test the value alignment argument and the ECLET-based method on a
larger sample of organizations and a wider range of change interventions.
(2) To develop and test further the method, especially to document it and make it
more user-friendly.
(3) To identify and evaluate other value system value alignment methods.
(4) To determine the impact of value alignment on the successful implementation
of change projects.
(5) To determine the extent to which value systems alignment influences change
project success compared with other factors such as implementation effectiveness and change leadership.
Nevertheless, from the work we have conducted to date, there appears to be strong
grounds for pursuing the value alignment argument.
References
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M.E. (1984) Theories of organizational culture, Organization Studies, 5(3),
pp. 193226.
Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L. and Burnes, B. (2005) Work Psychology, 5th
edn (Harlow, UK: FT/Prentice Hall).
Beck, D.E. and Cowan, C.C. (1996) Spiral Dynamics Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (Oxford:
Blackwell).
Beck, D.E. and Linscott, G. (1991) The Crucible: Forging South Africas Future (Denton, TX: New Paradigm
Press).
Benne, K.D. (1976) The processes of re-education: an assessment of Kurt Lewins views, Group & Organization
Studies, 1(1), pp. 2642.
160
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (eds) (2000a) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press).
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000b) Resolving the tensions between theories E and O of change, in: M. Beer and N.
Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Boddy, D. and Buchanan, D. (1992) Take the Lead: Interpersonal Skills for Change Agents (London: Prentice
Hall).
Bouckenooghe, D. and Devos, G. (2007) Psychological Change Climate as a Crucial Catalyst of Readiness for
Change: A Dominance Analysis, Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2007/27 (Gent, Belgium:
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School).
Brown, A. (1998) Organisational Culture, 2nd edn (London: FT/Pitman).
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J.L., Saint Lamont, S., Neath, A. and Whitby, E.
(2005) No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change, International
Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), pp. 189205.
Burnes, B. (1996) No such thing as . . . a one best way to manage organizational change, Management Decision,
34(10), pp. 1118.
Burnes, B. (2009a) Managing Change, 5th edn (London: FT/Prentice Hall).
Burnes, B. (2009b) Organisational change in the public sector: the case for planned change, in: R.T. By and C.
Macleod (eds) Managing Organisational Change in Public Services: International Issues, Challenges and
Cases (London: Routledge).
Burnes, B. (2009c) Reflections: ethics and organisational change time for a return to Lewinian calues, Journal
of Change Management, 9(4), pp. 359381.
Burnes, B. and Weekes, B. (1989) AMT: A Strategy for Success? (London: NEDO).
By, R.T. (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review, Journal of Change Management, 5(4),
pp. 369380.
Caldwell, R. (2003) Models of change agency: a fourfold classification, British Journal of Management, 14(2),
pp. 131142.
Caldwell, R. (2006) Agency and Change (London: Routledge).
Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2002) The role of environmental turbulence, readiness
for change, and salesperson learning in the success of sales force change, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 22(4), pp. 227245.
Cohen, A. and Keren, D. (2008) Individual values and social exchange variables: examining their relationship to
and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Group & Organization
Management, 33(4), pp. 425452.
Collins, D. (1998) Organizational Change (London: Routledge).
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. L. H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001) Justice at the millennium: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
pp. 425445.
Cook, J. (2008) The role of the individual in organisational cultures: a Gravesian integrated approach, PhD thesis,
Sheffield Hallam University.
Cowan, C.C. and Todorovic, N. (eds) (2005) The Never Ending Quest: Clare W Graves Explores Human Nature
(Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET).
Crabtree, B.F. and Miller, W.L. (1999) Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing style of interpretation, in: B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (eds) Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE).
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001) Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2),
pp. 164209.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2005) Organization Development and Change, 8th edn (Mason, OH: SouthWestern College).
Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach (London: Chapman).
Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991) Organizational culture and organizational development: a competing
values approach, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, pp. 121.
Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999) Challenging resistance to change, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
35(1), pp. 2541.
Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. and Mauriel, J.J. (2000) A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations, Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 850863.
161
Diefenbach, T. (2007) The managerialistic ideology of organizational change management, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), pp. 126144.
du Plessis, C.J. A. (2008) Ethical failure under the agency logic: grounding governance reform in a logic of value,
Group & Organization Management, 33(6), pp. 781804.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J. and Porter, L. (1975) Central life interest and organizational commitment of blue collar
and clerical workers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 411421.
Dunphy, D.D. and Stace, D.A. (1993) The strategic management of corporate change, Human Relations, 46(8),
pp. 905918.
Elizur, D. (1996) Work values and commitment, International Journal of Manpower, 17(3), pp. 2530.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999) Organization Development, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Glaser, B. and Straus, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
(Chicago, IL: Aldine).
Graves, C.W. (1966) Deterioration of work standards, Harvard Business Review, 44(5), pp. 117126.
Graves, C.W. (1970) Levels of existence: an open systems theory of values, Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
10(2), pp. 131155.
Graves, C.W. (1971/2002) W.R. Lee (ed.), Levels of Human Existence: A Transcript (Santa Barbara, CA:
ECLET).
Graves, C.W. (1974) Human nature prepares for a momentous leap, The Futurist, April, pp. 72 87.
Guy, M.E. (1984) Passages through the organization: old dogs and new tricks, Group & Organization Studies,
9(4), pp. 467479.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Re-engineering the Corporation (London: Brealey).
Handy, C. (1986) Understanding Organizations, 3rd edn (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin).
Handy, C. (1997) The Hungry Spirit (London: Hutchinson).
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1956) The Motivation to Work, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley).
Hoag, B.G., Ritschard, H.V. and Cooper, C.L. (2002) Obstacles to effective organization change: the underlying
reasons, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 23(1), pp. 615.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Valves (London: Sage).
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2004) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B, Ohayv, D. and Sanders, G. (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative
study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 286 316.
Holwerda, E. and Karsten, E. (2006) Empirical evidence for PeopleScans spiral dynamics tests, Masters dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D. (2001) Organizational Behaviour, 4th edn (Harlow, UK: FT/Prentice Hall).
Hurlbut, M.A. (1979) , Clare W Graves levels of psychological existence: a test design, PhD thesis, North Texas
State University.
Jackson, P. (2009) , A Gravesian values systems perspective on the design of consultative interventions in organizations, unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Manchester.
Johnson, C.S. (1995) The Rokeach Value Survey: underlying structure and multidimensional scaling, Journal of
Psychology, 129(5), pp. 583597.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational Change (New York: Free Press).
King, N. (1998) Template analysis, in: C. Cassell and G. Symon (eds) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in
Organisational Research (London: SAGE).
Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1997) The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: toward a
model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness, The Academy of Management Review, 22(3),
pp. 730757.
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
McKinsey & Company (2008) Creating organizational transformations, The McKinsey Quarterly, July, 17.
Available at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.
Mrotek, D.D. (2001) The drama of dysfunction: value conflict in US managed care, Human Relations, 54(2),
pp. 147172.
Neves, P. and Caetano, A. (2009) Commitment to change: contributions to trust in the supervisor and work outcomes, Group & Organization Management, 34(6), pp. 623644.
Novelli, L., Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1995) Effective implementation of organizational change: an
organizational justice perspective, in: C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds) Trends in Organizational Behavior, vol. 2 (Chichester, UK: Wiley).
162
OReilly, C. Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991) People and Organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing personorganization fit, Academy of Management Studies, 34, pp. 487 516.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective,
Information Systems Research, 7(1), pp. 6392.
Ouchi, W. (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley).
Peters, T. (1993) Liberation Management (London: Pan).
Pettigrew, A.M. (2000) Linking change processes and outcomes: a commentary on Ghosal, Bartlett and Weick,
in: M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press).
Pugh, D.S. (1993) Understanding and managing organizational change, in: C. Mabey and B. Mayon-White (eds)
Managing Change, 2nd edn (London: The Open University/ Chapman).
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press).
Rose M. (1988) Industrial Behaviour. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Rousseau, D.M. (2001) Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychological, 74(4), pp. 511541.
Schein, E. (1988) Organizational Psychology, 3rd edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Schein, E. (1989) Organizational culture: what it is and how to change it, in: P. Evans, T. Doz and A. Laurent
(eds) Human Resource Management in International Firms (London: Macmillan).
Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Schwartz, H. and Davis, S. (1981) Matching corporate culture and business strategy, Organizational Dynamics,
10, pp. 3048.
Scott, E.D. (2002) Organizational moral values, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 3355.
Senturia, T., Flees, L. and Maceda, M. (2008) Leading Change Management Requires Sticking to the PLOT
(London: Bain).
Smith, M.E. (2002) Success rates for different types of organizational change, Performance Improvement, 41(1),
pp. 2633.
Smith, M.E. (2003) Changing an organizations culture: correlates of success and failure, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), pp. 249261.
Sosik, J.J., Jung, D. and Dinger, S.L. (2009) Values in authentic action examining the roots and rewards of altruistic leadership, Group & Organization Management, 34(4), pp. 395431.
Stace, D. and Dunphy, D. (2001) Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Re-Creating the Successful Enterprise,
2nd edn (Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill).
Stickland, F. (1998) The Dynamics of Change: Insights into Organisational Transition from the Natural World
(London: Routledge).
Storey, J. (1992) Developments in the Management of Human Resources (Oxford: Blackwell).
Taylor, F.W. (1911/1998) The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Dover).
Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations, Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), pp. 510540.
van Marrewijk, M. (2004a) A values based approach to organization types: towards a coherent set of stakeholderoriented management tools, Journal of Business Ethics, 55, pp. 147158.
van Marrewijk, M. (2004b) The social dimension of organizations: recent experiences with great place to work
assessment practices, Journal of Business Ethics, 55, pp. 135146.
van Marrewijk, M. and Werre, M. (2003) Multiple levels of corporate sustainability, Journal of Business Ethics,
44, pp. 107119.
Walinga, J. (2008) Toward a theory of change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived control,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(3), pp. 315347.
Weick, K.E. (2000) Emergent change as a universal in organizations, in: M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking
the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Werkmeister, W. (1967) Man and His Values (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press).
Wooten, K.C. and White, L.P. (1999) Linking ODs philosophy with justice theory: postmodern implications,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), pp. 720.
Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

ContentServer - Asp 23

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ContentServer - Asp 23

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Change Management

Vol. 11, No. 2, 133 162, June 2011

Success and Failure In Organizational

Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK, Jackson Solutions, Liverpool, UK

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

If we move from a one best way approach to change to a contingency approach,

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Graves Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

DQ: Deny Self Now for Reward Later

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

FS: Deny Self for Acceptance by Others Now

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Deny self now for reward later

Express self for reward now

Deny self now for acceptance by others now

The Effectiveness of the Intervention

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

were willing to change as a result of the intervention. The long-term effectiveness

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

Table 4. Group A: focus group feedback

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Module 2. Motivation Maslow; Power/Achievement/Affiliation;

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

Module 4. Case studies to apply value systems to

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

predicted to align most strongly to an intervention based on FS values, be open to

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

Table 6b. Group B: change intervention report section B

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Figure 1. Group A Values Test raw scores.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

Figure 2. Participant 4 (Group A) Values Test raw scores.

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

The Values Test instrument was completed by 10 of the 13 members of Group

Figure 3. Group B Values Test raw scores.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

For Group B, the organizations training coordinator facilitated a group discussion

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Success and Failure in Organizational Change

B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen