process of change, whereas they are asking the question; ”What is it that we dream about?” . The phrase gives an impression of and including and collective point of view, where all parties of the organisation are involved. Another aspect is that in the AI model it is not mentioned who execute the change – is it everybody, like suggested above, or is there a certain group, like in Kotter’s model, that has the responsibility of doing this? It could also be interesting to see that one express the word goal in the dream phase, and immediately one could think of rationalism and its beliefs, which is characterized as a goal-seeking machine.
Could this mean that social constructivism and AI have some similarities with rational theory of management? Maybe it could be important to say that both the models and sciences have a goal, but what exactly the goal is, could be different in the two aspects.
The sixth step of Kotter’s model is to generate short term benefits, where one plan and realize fast visible victories, and also reward the ones that made these victories possible. Further the model next step is to consolidate the result and produce even more change, by using the change increased credibility to change all systems, structures and policies that do not harmonize with the vision. One should hire and promote employees that live the vision (Ibid.). The first thing I wish to question about this is the increased change credibility – to achieve even more change one have to rely on that the change credibility has in fact increased. If, for example, the credibility has not increased and the scepticism and resistance to change holds the change back, the entire model could fail, and this step cannot be conducted and completed as scheduled. It could and may be risky to the process, if one just assumes that the credibility will increase – it is not always the things we plan to happen, happens, and it could be crucial to take this into consideration. The second thing is based on comparison with the design phase in the AI model, where they ask what to do to make the dream a reality? How to create the circumstances that forms the framework that captures the best moments? It is emphasized that every possible solution should be included, and compared to Kotter’s credibility step this could give the impression of a more human approach to the way one implement change, whereas Kotter’s models seem to want to get rid of everything and everyone that is not in harmony with the new vision. One could question if this is the best possible way to implement change and get people to breathe and live the vision? Maybe this way of implementation only creates the opposite of what they want to achieve – more resistance to change and less actually living the vision.
The last step of Kotter’s models is about anchor the new approach in the culture, whereas one shall achieve new results through successful behaviour and more effective management and leadership. One seeks to find and clarify the connection between new behaviour and results, and one should recruit and develop management after the vision. The last step or phase in the AI model is the delivery phase, where they focus on what they like to do together, and also what they like to do by themselves. They question how they will manage or be able to see if and how they succeeded, and they wonder when and how they are going to make up a status, learn even more and find further initiatives (Ibid.). It could seem like the focus in Kotter’s model is more result oriented than process oriented, the important thing is that the change process bring both short term and long term results and that this should be brought upon with successful behaviour. What is successful behaviour? Who and what determines what successful behaviour is? Is it something everybody has to feel, and does in fact everybody behave like this? Is it the top management which decides what successful behaviour is, and if so what and how have they made for this to happen? Is successful behaviour one determined behaviour or could it be different from person to person? Do we want to manage robots or machines that think, speak and do exactly the same, or do we want do manage individuals that in their own special and unique way contribute to the success of the organisation? These are questions that come to mind when examining and comparing these two models. It seems like the AI model in a larger degree thinks of everybody in a team spirit – how can we cooperate and contribute to this change process to make sure that both the organisation succeeds, but also in a way that the employees are content with the consequences of the change and the new state it brings. However, it is important to see that the model also ask what the individual likes to do by themselves, so the individual is also in focus, as well as the organisation as a whole. I think that this could be a major factor that people actually believe and want to change, it think it creates less resistance to change and people are more motivated to make an effort towards the change because they that they are a part of it and may benefit from it. This is maybe were the most significant difference between the two models evolves, because I think where the AI model motivates people to participate in the change, Kotter’s model could struggle with reaching the same level of motivation at every part of the organisation.
However, it is worth mentioning that were Kotter’s model could seem a bit cynical, the AI model can be perceived as in some degree vague and a bit too tangible, there is nothing in this model that one can physically see or get your head around, and it could also be that some of the employees are more result oriented than process oriented and need to see that this gives a
higher profit or reduced costs, or even better working conditions for the employees. Although the word Inquiry stands for a wish to create a better world, such as increasing the efficiency, improve the cooperation, and also uses situations which have worked well or even best before and also dreams for the future, it may be somewhat diffuse and it could be difficult to reach all of the employees to believe and participate in the change process.
In general it could also be worth to mention that neither of the models mentions the time aspect within the different steps or phases. It could make a difference to the process if one knew exactly what to do at what time, and who were involved in this. Then again, it is important that the theory are open for the possibility where the intentions not come out as the wanted and actual result – there could always happen things one cannot predict, and that’s when it could be important to a plan or at least be ready in case this happens.
Another aspect to this is that I have not compared it to the second approach which also underlies functionalism – the visionary / ideological approach. However, Kotter emphasize for that he maintains the eight step model and the linear approach it builds on also in this approach so I will therefore only describe some small and general comparisons. Even though the visionary model builds on the eight step model of Kotter it is at the same time inspired of the ”best practice” from other organisations, where one seeks to create an attractive vision to follow in the future (Ibid.). This could be a similarity to the AI model, where they both focus on the future and also on something positive, something that has worked in other situations.
However, while the AI model seeks to look at something which was a good situation for the organisation, the visionary looks at other organisation and wishes to follow their example.
The visionary model could also be seen as more human than the classic rational approach to strategic management, where one look at the biggest challenge as changing the behaviour of the employees, where one further seek to do this by focusing more on a see-feel approach, where the primary source to change the behaviour is to create positive feelings. This could also relate to the AI model, however, as we have discussed earlier, the AI model could seem to lack some steps of definition and clarity, whereas the visionary model builds on Kotter’s eight step model and in addition takes more into account the humans feeling, behaviour and sense-making towards the vision and change. In this model it is 80 % the dream that gives the change meaning, the dream creates positive feelings and the positive feeling creates new paths and new behavioural patterns. The model also creates a safety net for the employees, so that they could dare to take the first step into the unknown. This is something that separates from
both the AI model and the classic rational approach, and it could be seen as a positive adding, for securing the employees. The model also emphasize for someone or somebody to give feedback, either if it positive or if is not going as planned. This clearly has a parallel to the classic rational approach, where there is described that a group, together with the top manager, leads the change. This is not described in the AI model and supports the argument of lack of clear steps and definitions in the process of change.
Further I want to look at these models mentioned above compared to the different culture and dimensions of cultural features, which we have described in section 3.5. The basis for the analysis and discussion will be the four dimensions, described by the author Geert Hofstede;
Masculinity versus femininity, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and distance of power, but one will also include some of the aspect like individual, the relationship to nature, the relationship to others, activity, space and time if and when this is suitable for the discussion. It could also be sensible to include the level to which culture can exist in some sections of the analysis.
The first aspect of the theories of change management that one discussed were the difference in focus, either on the positive and future, or the past and both the possibilities, but also the negative and threats. If one compare this to the cultural dimensions, such as for example the dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Could one draw a parallel where one assume that cultures that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance would both analyze the threats and the negative incidents from the future, just to make sure that this would not happen again.
However it could also be likely that they focus on the opportunities for the future, but just to be sure also find potential crisis’s just to avoid this and avoid the uncertainty of not knowing what might happen. Could this mean that a country like France would use Kotter’s eight step model to implement change, where there exists many hierarchical layers, rules and structures?
Opposite, would a country like Norway, which have a low degree of uncertainty avoidance, use the AI model to implement change, whereas the only thing is in mind are the future dreams and how one together can create our own reality. Because we tolerate uncertainty and don’t avoid it, are our perceptions more positive and future minded? If one should say that Germany is a country that lies more or less in between France and Norway, could this mean that they could benefit from using the visionary model when implementing change in an organisation? It entails both structure and clear steps and definitions on the process of change, but at the same time it focus on a dream and other ”best practice” examples as role models for
implementation. In addition it could be worth mentioning that such cultures as Germany emphasize for order and quality and that maybe a total quality management, where the quality aspect in focus, could be a well suitable program and management style for them to follow.
One could also mention the time aspect in relation to this, where one question if one are oriented with the past, or the future? Considerations about long term goals and commitments are in some cultures meet with resistance, where profit gains on a short basis seems more reasonable, while other organisations in other countries or influenced by other cultures, may have long term goals and be satisfied with this. The attitude towards a regulating dimension of behaviour, may also vary between cultures. For example is timely precision and punctuality seen as polite in the North of Europe, while in the Latin countries and Africa on may experience a different attitude towards time, whereas sometimes people comes and goes as they wants, even though meetings are planned and scheduled with others (Strand, 2004).
The next aspect is where Kotter’s model could seem a bit cynical in relation to the people within the organisation, whereas the AI model seems more considerate towards the people working in the organisation. Kotter wants to promote and reward those who contributes to victories through the change process and those who lives the vision, while the AI model seeks to include everybody and seek to find what they together do best, but also what they like to do separately. Could this be seen in relation to the dimension individualism versus collectivism, where more individualistic cultures would chose Kotter’s model, where they strongly connects to what the individuals are or what they do. Effort and performance are being highly rewarded in such cultures, and everybody has the right to their own opinion and private life, and can only have one determined and calculated relationship to work. At the opposite end where more collective cultures occurs, the social relationship are closer and the employees are seen as members of a big family within the organisation or the unit they are a part of, where protect each other in exchange for loyalty. Could this mean that organisations in the US would chose Kotter’s model, where individuals are rewarded after effort and performance, and if one don’t manage to deliver at the standards that the organisations or top management demand, one could risk getting dismissed. In Pakistan and Peru, which are collective cultures, could one expect that they would use the AI model, where the collective is in focus and where everybody should contribute and be considered.
It could further be interesting to include the characteristics like individual, the relationship to others, and activity, in this section, where the dimension of behaviour of the individual asks if the human beings are good or evil, or even both. Do they have the possibility to choose freely and are they to be trusted? These are aspects one might have to consider when working with different cultures in an organisation, also when implementing change? When combining different cultures in an organisation the individuals may have different perceptions of this and act in accordance, so the management task could be to give clear guidelines towards this so that there wouldn’t be any misunderstandings. The relationship to others is another dimension of behaviour one has to consider. Does one relate to others like they are individuals or members of a group? Are the decision making based on and made by individuals or based on an agreement from a group? These are aspects that every organisation or business unit need to consider when planning a change process with different cultures – people from individualistic cultures could be used to that it one person, maybe the leader, who makes the decisions, while an employee from a collective culture is more used to that decisions are made together within a group. Also, when looking at employment one could experience some challenges where in some cultures it is normal to hire a person based on that he or she either is family or a good friend, while in other cultures this is considered highly unprofessional and demands that employment should be based on documented education and experience. This probably depends on the organisational structure within the organisation as well, where strongly hierarchical organisations may not tolerate family or friendship hiring, while more flat, unstructured and collective cultures would maybe not have a problem with this.
The next dimension of behaviour is activity, where one needs to consider if the employees are working to achieve goals or just as a natural part of life. Id the meaning with life to be someone – that could easily be compared to the individualistic cultures, or is it to do something meaningful – which could compared to all types of cultures, either one do something together in an collective view, or separately within an individualistic approach.
The third aspect is related to the treatments of the human being in the different models, as we have said before Kotter’s eight step model could seem both cynical and cold whereas to how one treat the employees, while both the visionary and the AI model seem to take the employees into more and careful consideration when implementing the change. One could be able to draw two parallels to this, whereas the first one could be to a masculine culture, where performance and effort is the only thing that is important, and where money and material welfare and ambitions are the driving force. These could be seen as a cynical world, where
good human relations sometimes might be though to achieve. It is attractive to be strong, big and masculine and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitude.
Could this mean that masculine cultures like Australia, Japan and Italy would be most compatible with Kotter’s eight step model, and that the more feminine cultures, like the Netherlands and the Northern countries, would be more compatible with the AI model, where one takes the whole human into consideration. Life quality is predicted as the most important thing, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is seen as a motivational factor. One believe in similarity between the genders, where both men and women can be care givers, whereas in a masculine culture gender roles are separated, where the men are dominating and ongoing, while women should only be care givers. The models does not say anything about genders in their phases or steps concerning the change process, so one could only speculate that a masculine culture would fit better to the classic rational approach, while a feminine culture should be better suitable for the AI model as care givers in an professionally way.
The second parallel in this matter and also concerning the last dimension of Hofstede`s cultural characteristics, is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much the culture allows a superior to execute power. It could be reasonable to think that the classic rational approach containing Kotter’s eight step model could be the model for implementing change that would fit the cultures with a high level of distance to power. In these cultures it is fundamental to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be looked at with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position.
Domination and dependency are the fundamentals for cooperation, and with some similarities to other cultures, like the masculine and the individualistic, Kotter’s eight step model could seem like a compatible match, where it could seem like there exist somewhat hierarchy, order, structure and where results and performance are rewarded and in focus. Organisation or situation containing these circumstances, could experience a battle between the different positions within the organisations, both internally and externally. Typical countries where this could appear are Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. Opposite, one has countries that have a low level of distance to power, where one operate with a more collegial relationship and a common perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for cooperation, and leaders and management cannot show the power they posses. Countries where this culture is typical are Norway, Israel and also the Northern European countries, and it could be likely that organisations in these countries would chose or be most compatible