Based on the discussion and analysis above, it is difficult to find or conclude that one model is better for implementing change, or even that one culture due to their cultural features may adapt the change better or easier, with less resistance. One could suggest that it seems likely that the AI model and social constructivism are concepts and sciences which are more appealing to feminine, collective and cultures with a low level of distance to power, whereas soft values like team spirit and performance, belonging, unity, prosperity and work environment are seen as aspect that are important to perform well, also in change situations.
However, this is also dependent on the organisational culture within the organisation, even though a company is situated in Norway, it could be an American owned company, which means that there could be a mix of different cultures working there, maybe in large Norwegians, but also Americans and other nationalities. The model of change one wants to use in this matter, is then dependent on the choice of the management, how do they think the new change will be implemented and adapted in the best possible way for the entire organisation? The choice of change model is then based on the specific situation of the organisation, both concerning the different cultures involved, and also the method of implementation that should be taken in to use in this matter.
Opposite it could be valid to suggest that Kotter’s eight step model would be preferable to use in masculine and individualistic cultures, and also cultures with a high level of distance to power, and the last dimension of Hofstede, which in this case could be cultures with a high degree of uncertainty avoidance. The validation to this suggestions lies in the cultural features where one seek to emphasize for rules and regulations, honour the ones or the one that contributes the most to a certain task, and where one seek to find both former risk and future possibilities before implementing the change. However, the same as for the above mentioned cultures, one could have a mix of different cultures, even though the company are situated in a country with a strong cultural dimension. One could further suggest that organisation that are situated in their own country, with most of their employees from the home country, would choose a model that are comparable and compatible with both the organisational and the international culture, whereas this could be seen as based on a generic evaluation and choice, which assumes that this choice relies on a common perception of all the involved parties in the organisation and culture that this is the right choice to make. In the other case mentioned above, it could be slightly different, where one could have a situation where an organisation is
situated in one country, but the employees working there are from all over the world and from all different cultures – what is then the right choice to make, and will everybody agree upon this choice? This is difficult to answer and I don’t think there is one way that is the best and optimal to do it, rather that the optimal and best way of implementing change would depend entirely on the entire situation and the organisation, and even case to case. It is up to the management to decide which tactics and models to use when trying to reach and commit all involved parties of the organisation in the process of change. In this situation it is not given that all of the employees and even the management group are unified in which model to use and even have the same perception of what would be the best model to use, because of their different cultural values and beliefs. In it not a matter of a generic choice, but rather a situational evaluation of the specific situation the organisation is in, whereas one seek to find the best an optimal way to implement change in this situation, and for this organisation.
Another thing to consider in the process of change, is that one meet the organisation and culture where it is, and change should take into account the unique history of the organisation, the challenges the organisation experience and the possibilities that occurs, also including resources (Guldbrandsen, 2010).
One may further take OD and TQM into consideration, whereas both of them can be seen as more feminine than masculine, and also more collective than individualistic, which could give an assumption that both of these models could be more compatible for implementing change in countries like Peru, Pakistan and also the Netherlands and Northern countries. However, one may also suggest that TQM could be a suitable model for cultures and organisation with a high level of uncertainty avoidance and distance to power, such as Asia, Africa and the Latina countries, as well as Greece and Portugal. When looking at these dimension and the OD model, one may find a culture that have a middle range of both of these aspect, because one may suggest that these dimension does not stand out as particular strong or weak related to the OD approach.
Based on the analysis, the three isms, rationalism, functionalism and social constructivism, and a fourth ism applied by Klaus Guldbrandsen - pragmatism, one may conclude with the fact that the choice of which approach and access to use to change management, should be situational. The things that should determine which management style to chose, is partly the subject field of the change, tangible to intangible, and partly the organisations history and management culture. The most important points when considering change management, is
that the choice of management style and school, should be a conscious choice. Too often, one experience that leaders and change agents uncritical reproduces the approach that themselves have experienced. If one just reproduces the existing approach to change management, one may instead risk that the culture lead you, whereby you will be the biggest obstacle to your own success. A prerequisite for the choice one makes in relation to the change management approach is to have solid knowledge of the different schools and the tools, which you may support and relay upon, in the process of change.
A quote from the cultural theory`s father, Schein, states an important message for the future;
”As a leader you have one, and just one, important choice: - will you lead the culture or will you let the culture lead you” (Guldbrandsen, 2010, pp. 39).
5.1. Further research
Further research should be enrolled around making awareness of these theories, so that the right decisions are made in each individual case of change, and also at the beginning of the process. One may question what kind of change are one dealing with, what is the history of the organisation, how should this change be managed and which change theory approach should one use, to achieve the best result, both considering efficiency and quality, but also the organisations as a whole, with its contributing and committed employees. The cultural feature and the organisational culture or the mix of cultures, could also be comprehensive to have knowledge of, before the implementation of the change starts. Making awareness and information of these matters could contribute to make change processes in the future and all over the world, more effective and successful.