Creating A Culture of Change in Charities

Research · February 2016with210 Reads
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4686.5684
2016-02-08 T 19:20:54 UTC
Abstract
The goal of this research paper is to look at existing charities to examine organisational culture and evaluate this against the implementation of change, and to provide guidance and instruction for The Norwegian Mission Society (NMS) in the future. Are there certain characteristics that need to exist in an organisation’s culture in order for change to be successfully implemented? As the research question seeks to determine if a common set of characteristics exist, the research philosophy has a stronger basis in epistemology than ontology or axiology. Therefore, a largely epistemological paradigm is the basis for the research philosophy. The tactic of determining a new theory after the collection of data, or an inductive approach, was chosen; utilising Grounded Theory and Critical Incident Technique. The data collected revealed three qualities that were consistently in the top 3 list of qualities desired, regardless of which independent variable was used. These were “Concise”, “Creation”, and “Cause”. The quality “Concise” sought to measure how important it was to each individual respondent that the “change plan” be lengthy or of few words. “Creation” was designed to identify how important it was that the respondent was involved in making choices as the organisation transformed. Lastly, the degree of importance to each individual as to the purpose and goal of the organisation being clear in the description of the change was labelled “cause”. Thereby the research question was answered positively; a common set of organisational cultural characteristics does exist in charities that have successfully implemented change. This research identifies the power of “a couple of questions”; one or two strategic questions which empower and enable people at all levels in the organisation to make decisions in the process of strategic change. By creating a question or statement that employees and stakeholders can pose before making decisions, many of the details of the implementation of change can be moved from a static plan to an empowered group of problem solvers, who gain increased ownership of the organisation.
CREATING A CULTURE
OF CHANGE
IN CHARITIES
Seth Ueland Chancy
York St John University
Business School
August 2015
ii Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Leading Innovation and Change
The candidate confirms that the work attached is entirely his own, except where the words
or ideas of other writers are specifically acknowledged according to accepted citation
conventions and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to
the work of others. This assignment has not been submitted for any other course at York
St. John University, or any other institution. The candidate has revised, edited, and
proofread this paper.
Word Count: 13130
In accordance with the guidelines established by York St John University, the word count
does not include the cover page, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents, tables
and figures and their captions, references and appendices.
This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no
quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.
© 2015 York St John University and Seth Richard Ueland Chancy
The right of Seth Richard Ueland Chancy to be identified as Author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
If you are citing this work, please refer to it as:
Seth Ueland Chancy 2015 “Creating a Culture of Change in Charities”, Dissertation
submitted for the award of MA Leading Innovation and Change; York St John University
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities iii
i. ABSTRACT
The goal of this research paper is to look at existing charities to examine organisational
culture and evaluate this against the implementation of change, and to provide guidance
and instruction for The Norwegian Mission Society (NMS) in the future.
A
A
r
r
e
e
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
e
e
c
c
e
e
r
r
t
t
a
a
i
i
n
n
c
c
h
h
a
a
r
r
a
a
c
c
t
t
e
e
r
r
i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s
t
t
h
h
a
a
t
t
n
n
e
e
e
e
d
d
t
t
o
o
e
e
x
x
i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
n
n
a
a
n
n
o
o
r
r
g
g
a
a
n
n
i
i
s
s
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
s
s
c
c
u
u
l
l
t
t
u
u
r
r
e
e
i
i
n
n
o
o
r
r
d
d
e
e
r
r
f
f
o
o
r
r
c
c
h
h
a
a
n
n
g
g
e
e
t
t
o
o
b
b
e
e
s
s
u
u
c
c
c
c
e
e
s
s
s
s
f
f
u
u
l
l
l
l
y
y
i
i
m
m
p
p
l
l
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
e
e
d
d
?
?
As the research question seeks to determine if a common set of characteristics exist, the
research philosophy has a stronger basis in epistemology than ontology or axiology.
Therefore, a largely epistemological paradigm is the basis for the research philosophy. The
tactic of determining a new theory after the collection of data, or an inductive approach,
was chosen; utilizing Grounded Theory and Critical Incident Technique.
The data collected revealed three qualities that were consistently in the top 3 list of
qualities desired, regardless of which independent variable was used. These were
“Concise”, “Creation”, and “Cause”.
The quality “Concise” sought to measure how important it was to each individual
respondent that the “change plan” be lengthy or of few words.
“Creation” was designed to identify how important it was that the respondent was
involved in making choices as the organisation transformed.
Lastly, the degree of importance to each individual as to the purpose and goal of the
organisation being clear in the description of the change was labelled “cause”.
Thereby the research question was answered positively; a common set of organisational
cultural characteristics does exist in charities that have successfully implemented change.
This research identifies the power of “a couple of questions”; one or two strategic
questions which empower and enable people at all levels in the organisation to make
decisions in the process of strategic change. By creating a question or statement that
employees and stakeholders can pose before making decisions, many of the details of the
implementation of change can be moved from a static plan to an empowered group of
problem solvers, who gain increased ownership of the organisation.
iv Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
ii. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people to whom I am extremely grateful for their support and assistance
during my time of study. I am grateful to my employer, The Norwegian Mission Society,
for permitting me to undertake this study, for allowing me the time and the finances to
make this a reality. Specifically, I wish to acknowledge my immediate supervisor, Tor
Helge Køhn, who made significant sacrifices, taking on many of my duties, in addition to
his own, in order for this to be possible.
To my many friends, colleagues, and associates, I extend a heartfelt thank you for all that
you have done during the course of my writing of this dissertation. Particularly noteworthy,
for your insight, wisdom, guidance, instruction, encouragement, and assistance: Claire
Lewin, Cate Jerram, Mark Hahn, Sarah Chancy, Marge Fredricks, Ruth Carter, Elin
Underhaug Kanu, Ron Carucci, Stefanie Herm, and Bobbi Johnson-Tanner.
A significant portion of credit goes to my supervisor David Thompson, who always knew
the right questions to ask, provided insight and new possibilities to explore and is truly the
consummate teacher – inspiring and encouraging his students in the pursuit of
knowledge, not only during the course of formal education but truly as a lifelong pursuit. I
am extremely blessed that I was able to undergo this process under your tutelage.
Finally, I am most of all indebted to my wife Siri Ueland Chancy for her support,
encouragement as well as the many sacrifices that she has made over the course of this
journey. I am confident in saying that this would not have been possible without your
support. Thank you.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities v
iii. Table of Contents
i
i
.
.
A
A
b
b
s
s
t
t
r
r
a
a
c
c
t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
.
.
A
A
c
c
k
k
n
n
o
o
w
w
l
l
e
e
d
d
g
g
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
i
v
v
i
i
v
v
.
.
F
F
i
i
g
g
u
u
r
r
e
e
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
v
i
i
i
i
i
i
v
v
.
.
T
T
a
a
b
b
l
l
e
e
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
v
i
i
i
i
i
i
C
C
h
h
a
a
p
p
t
t
e
e
r
r
1
1
I
I
n
n
t
t
r
r
o
o
d
d
u
u
c
c
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Focus .................................................................................................................................... 3
Overall Research Aim and Individual Research Objectives ...................................................... 4
Value of This Research ...................................................................................................................... 4
C
C
h
h
a
a
p
p
t
t
e
e
r
r
2
2
R
R
e
e
v
v
i
i
e
e
w
w
o
o
f
f
E
E
x
x
i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
n
n
g
g
L
L
i
i
t
t
e
e
r
r
a
a
t
t
u
u
r
r
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Aspects Unique to Stakeholders in Charities ............................................................................. 6
Psychological Contracts ..................................................................................................................... 6
Process or Culture ............................................................................................................................. 7
Theory O vs. Theory E ........................................................................................................................ 8
Inspiring Change ................................................................................................................................ 8
Empowerment .................................................................................................................................... 9
Leadership .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Transformational Leaders ................................................................................................................ 10
21
st Century Leader ........................................................................................................................... 14
Competing Values Framework ....................................................................................................... 14
Decision Making and Transmission ............................................................................................. 16
Communication Channels .............................................................................................................. 20
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 21
C
C
h
h
a
a
p
p
t
t
e
e
r
r
3
3
R
R
e
e
s
s
e
e
a
a
r
r
c
c
h
h
M
M
e
e
t
t
h
h
o
o
d
d
o
o
l
l
o
o
g
g
y
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
3
3
Research Philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 24
Research Approach ........................................................................................................................... 25
Methodical Choice .......................................................................................................................... 26
Strategy .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Time Horizon ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 28
Pre-Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 28
vi Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................... 29
Post-Interview ................................................................................................................................... 31
Validity ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Reliability ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Generalisability ................................................................................................................................ 33
Ethics ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Limitations and Possible Problems .............................................................................................. 33
Psychometric Challenges ................................................................................................................. 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 34
C
C
h
h
a
a
p
p
t
t
e
e
r
r
4
4
F
F
i
i
n
n
d
d
i
i
n
n
g
g
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
6
6
Survey Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 36
Concise, Creation, and Cause .......................................................................................................... 36
Quantitative Data, Survey Part One ................................................................................................ 37
Quantitative Data, Survey Part Two ................................................................................................ 42
Field Post-Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 42
New Thoughts .................................................................................................................................. 44
C
C
h
h
a
a
p
p
t
t
e
e
r
r
5
5
C
C
o
o
n
n
c
c
l
l
u
u
s
s
i
i
o
o
n
n
a
a
n
n
d
d
R
R
e
e
f
f
l
l
e
e
c
c
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
4
5
5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Research Objectives: Summary of Findings and Conclusion ................................................. 45
Stakeholders ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Decision-Making .............................................................................................................................. 45
Communication Channels .............................................................................................................. 46
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 46
Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................... 46
Decision-Making .............................................................................................................................. 47
Communication Channels ............................................................................................................... 47
Contribution to knowledge .......................................................................................................... 48
Limitations and Additional Research Opportunities .............................................................. 48
Self-Reflection .................................................................................................................................. 49
v
v
i
i
.
.
R
R
e
e
f
f
e
e
r
r
e
e
n
n
c
c
e
e
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
5
3
3
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
A
A
5
5
0
0
Q
Q
u
u
a
a
l
l
i
i
t
t
i
i
e
e
s
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6
2
2
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
B
B
Q
Q
u
u
e
e
s
s
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
n
n
a
a
i
i
r
r
e
e
,
,
P
P
a
a
r
r
t
t
O
O
n
n
e
e
-
-
E
E
n
n
g
g
l
l
i
i
s
s
h
h
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
6
4
4
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
C
C
Q
Q
u
u
e
e
s
s
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
n
n
a
a
i
i
r
r
e
e
,
,
P
P
a
a
r
r
t
t
O
O
n
n
e
e
N
N
o
o
r
r
w
w
e
e
g
g
i
i
a
a
n
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
7
6
6
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
D
D
Q
Q
u
u
e
e
s
s
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
n
n
a
a
i
i
r
r
e
e
,
,
P
P
a
a
r
r
t
t
T
T
w
w
o
o
-
-
E
E
n
n
g
g
l
l
i
i
s
s
h
h
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
8
8
8
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities vii
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
E
E
Q
Q
u
u
e
e
s
s
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
n
n
a
a
i
i
r
r
e
e
,
,
P
P
a
a
r
r
t
t
T
T
w
w
o
o
-
-
N
N
o
o
r
r
w
w
e
e
g
g
i
i
a
a
n
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
9
4
4
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
F
F
M
M
e
e
a
a
s
s
u
u
r
r
e
e
o
o
f
f
C
C
e
e
n
n
t
t
r
r
a
a
l
l
T
T
e
e
n
n
d
d
e
e
n
n
c
c
i
i
e
e
s
s
B
B
y
y
O
O
r
r
g
g
a
a
n
n
i
i
z
z
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
0
0
0
0
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
G
G
M
M
e
e
a
a
s
s
u
u
r
r
e
e
s
s
o
o
f
f
C
C
e
e
n
n
t
t
r
r
a
a
l
l
T
T
e
e
n
n
d
d
e
e
n
n
c
c
y
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
0
0
5
5
A
A
p
p
p
p
e
e
n
n
d
d
i
i
x
x
H
H
O
O
n
n
e
e
W
W
a
a
y
y
A
A
n
n
a
a
l
l
y
y
s
s
i
i
s
s
o
o
f
f
V
V
a
a
r
r
i
i
a
a
n
n
c
c
e
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
viii Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
iv. FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, NMS. ..................................... 2
FIGURE 2 - MANAGERIAL GRID, (BLAKE & MOUTON 1964) ........................................................... 11
FIGURE 3 - POWER - INTEREST GRID (FREEMAN 1984) ................................................................... 17
FIGURE 4 - STAKEHOLDER GRID (JAMES 2012, P. 87) .................................................................... 18
FIGURE 5 - DECISIONS IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS (FLICK 2011) ................................................... 23
FIGURE 6 - FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGN (CRESWELL 2009) .............................................................. 23
FIGURE 7 - RESEARCH ONION (SAUNDERS ET. AL 2009) .............................................................. 24
FIGURE 8 - PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BY ORGANISATION ...................................................... 29
FIGURE 9 - PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BY POSITION .............................................................. 30
FIGURE 10 - MEAN OF CONCISE BY POSITION ............................................................................ 39
FIGURE 11 - MEAN OF CREATION BY AGE .................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 12 - MEAN OF CAUSE BY POSITION .................................................................................. 41
v. TABLES
TABLE 1 - THEORY O VS. THEORY E (BEER & NOHRIA 2000) ......................................................... 8
TABLE 2 - LEADERSHIP PREFERENCES, MALNIGHT ET AL., 2013 ...................................................... 12
TABLE 3 - UNIVERSAL LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK, O’CONNELL, 2014 .............................................. 14
TABLE 4- DECISIONS IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS, (SAUNDERS ET AL. 2009) ................................. 25
TABLE 5 - STAGES OF REASEARCH ................................................................................................ 27
TABLE 6 - MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCIES - TOP 15 QUALITIES .............................................. 37
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Achieving change in organisational culture in non-profit organisations is necessary, yet
difficult (Gill 2009; Dimitrios et al. 2013). Unfortunately, most of the writings currently
focus on the public and private sectors, while few address the challenges unique to the
social sector (Herman & Renz 2008).
This research will examine value-based, volunteer-supported organisations. This will
include organisations managed by volunteers serving in elected board positions
throughout the organisation. For sake of ease, the term “charity” will be used.
BACKGROUND
The impetus for this research is based on a variety of strategic change processes over the
last few years in The Norwegian Mission Society1 (NMS). NMS, one of the organisations
involved in the research discussed later in this paper, is a non-profit, faith-based
organisation that conducts and supports assistance and development projects in Africa,
Asia, Europe, and South America.
Grants from the Norwegian government comprise a significant portion of funding for
these projects. Individual giving from stakeholders cover the organisation’s operational
costs in Norway as well as programs overseas not supported by the government. There are
many people who share the vision of the organisation, and contribute significant amounts
of time and money. The group of people described as stakeholders in this paper are such
supporters, who therefore have a vested interested in the future of an organisation.
NMS is a democratic organisation, and through processes of election, many stakeholders
serve on local, regional, and national boards. Despite democratic bodies and procedures
in place, there are still other methods of exerting influence, such as lobbying board
members, reduced participation in volunteering, or withholding money. Like many other
such organisations, the majority of financial giving comes from an increasingly ageing
population, and giving has not kept pace with rising costs.
1 Explicit permission to identify The Norwegian Mission Society has been obtained.
2 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
There are many assessments of organisational culture available today. One of the most
prevalent assessments is the Competing Values Framework, as presented by Cameron and
Quinn (2006). Several members of NMS completed the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument; the results of which are presented in Figure 1.
The existing culture is well placed within the Hierarchy Quadrant, with well defined
systems for creating and implementing strategy. There is a desire in the organisation to
move from an internal focus to an external dynamic focus.
Change processes have been attempted in NMS; some have been mandated by financial
crisis, and others have been desired for strategic reasons. Whether these change
processes have been successful remains to be seen, but many agree these processes have
been more difficult than expected and have been the cause for a great deal of tension
within the organisation.
FF
I
I
G
G
U
U
R
R
E
E
1
1
-
-
O
O
R
R
G
G
A
A
N
N
S
S
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
A
A
L
L
C
C
U
U
L
L
T
T
U
U
R
R
E
E
A
A
S
S
S
S
E
E
S
S
S
S
M
M
E
E
N
N
T
T
I
I
N
N
S
S
T
T
R
R
U
U
M
M
E
E
N
N
T
T
,
,
N
N
M
M
S
S
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 3
Examination of existing literature on change management, as related to charity
organisations, has revealed a wealth of material. Williams (2011) focused on innovation
and the accompanying risks; Dimitrios et al. (2013) investigated strategic planning,
business analysis and decision making processes; Hine (2004) concentrated on
fundraising, administrative processes, and lobbying (2004). As Herman (2008) identified
in his work, little of this research explores either the role of stakeholders in the change
process or how to properly involve and communicate to stakeholders (Bess et al. 2009;
Fletcher et al. 2003; Langley et al. 2013; Van de Ven & Sun 2011).
By examining the change process attempted in NMS over the last few years, through
interviews covered in this research, it is clear the challenges have arisen partially due to
the utilisation of one-way communication and the timing of the involvement of external
stakeholders (primarily volunteers and financial supporters) and volunteers in elected
board positions throughout the organisation. A couple of processes initiated by leadership
have taken much longer than expected, as the implementation had to stop while
additional rounds of dialogue meetings were held.
It is hoped this research will benefit not only NMS but also other charity organisations
seeking to implement change.
RESEARCH FOCUS
While stakeholder challenges are not unique to charities, the manner in which these
challenges arise and will be solved can vary greatly from those of commercial businesses
(Williams 2011). A chief concern among these challenges are the emotional bonds and
psychological contracts that develop when stakeholders invest in non-profit organisations,
especially as related to breach of psychological contracts (Vantilborgh et al. 2011; Nichols
2013; Parzefall & CoyleShapiro 2011).
In light of such concerns and challenges, questions are raised. Is it possible to create a
culture of change in charitable organisations? Are there certain organisational culture
characteristics, as described by Hofstede (1998), that need to exist in order for change to
be successfully implemented?
4 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
The goal of this research paper is to examine existing charities to evaluate organisational
culture against the implementation of change to provide guidance and instruction for
NMS in the future.
A
A
r
r
e
e
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
e
e
c
c
e
e
r
r
t
t
a
a
i
i
n
n
c
c
h
h
a
a
r
r
a
a
c
c
t
t
e
e
r
r
i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s
t
t
h
h
a
a
t
t
n
n
e
e
e
e
d
d
t
t
o
o
e
e
x
x
i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
n
n
a
a
n
n
o
o
r
r
g
g
a
a
n
n
i
i
s
s
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
s
s
c
c
u
u
l
l
t
t
u
u
r
r
e
e
i
i
n
n
o
o
r
r
d
d
e
e
r
r
f
f
o
o
r
r
c
c
h
h
a
a
n
n
g
g
e
e
t
t
o
o
b
b
e
e
s
s
u
u
c
c
c
c
e
e
s
s
s
s
f
f
u
u
l
l
l
l
y
y
i
i
m
m
p
p
l
l
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
e
e
d
d
?
?
A desired result would be to discover new knowledge that can guide NMS in the
future.
OVERALL RESEARCH AIM AND INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
In order to accomplish this goal, the research objectives will be to:
Identify aspects unique to stakeholders in charities.
identify if similar organisational culture characteristics exist in charities that
have successfully implemented change.
examine the process of decision-making, the involvement of employees and
volunteers in the identification and design of change programmes.
explore communication channels and how these help or hinder the change
process.
seek to make a recommendation for value-based or faith-based democratic
organisations, particularly NMS, in the planning and execution of a change
process.
VALUE OF THIS RESEARCH
Non-profits are often faced with reduced resources; in terms of giving and volunteering
man-hours. In some instances, this is due to governmental agencies taking on the work
previously carried out by non-profits (Cunningham et al. 2011) and, in other cases, due to
the changing nature of society (Nichols 2013). The need for change has increased;
however, at the same time, non-profits are not able to hire consultants, as this is either
cost prohibitive or not acceptable to the financial supporters (Clark & Taplin 2012; Taplin
et al. 2013).
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 5
Investigating the aspect of stakeholders, decision-making process and communication in
the implementation of change in charities in addition to the research presented in this
paper will benefit many charities. This research can be developed further, beyond what the
scope of this dissertation will permit and result in even more concrete guidance for
charities in the future.
These goals shall be the basis for this empirical research and serve as guidance in the
examination of existing literature.
6 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
This literature review will examine the specific aspects of charities as identified by the
creation of the terms “The Third Sector” or “The Social Sector”, in particular to the
volunteer-funded charities outlined previously. Furthermore, the literature review will
explore the specific differences as related to research objectives stated in Chapter 1.
ASPECTS UNIQUE TO STAKEHOLDERS IN CHARITIES
It seems to reason if one divides the professional organisations into three sectors (public,
private, and social) it is because significant distinctions exist. These distinctions can be
found in regards to stakeholders. Fletcher et al. (2003) identified, for example,
Key stakeholders may also use various types of ‘influence strategies’ whereby they
make known the priorities organisations should be attending in their decision-
making (Frooman, 1999). Stakeholders are recognized as being of particular
importance in public and non-profit organisations, which commonly have a more
diverse group of stakeholders than private for-profit organisations (Bryson, 1995),
making it more difficult to identify strategic issues
(Fletcher et al. 2003, p.508)
.
Collins (2005a) focuses on the management of third sector organisations, and notes, the
style of leadership must be more of a diplomatic nature, as internal and external
stakeholder exert a substantial amount of influence. Gill (2010) identified some additional
challenges non-profit organisations face:
Expectations for the performance of non-profits are increasing dramatically.
Non-profits are being held accountable for, at the same time, solving all the ills
of our society, showing measurable results, and being financially solvent
(Gill
2010, p.1)
.
It is the style of leadership and involvement of the volunteers, supporters, and other
stakeholders that vary from “for profit” entities as illustrated above by Fletcher, Collins,
and Gill.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACTS
Psychological contracts were first identified by Rousseau (1989). The fact that
psychological contracts exist, particularly among employees, has been well documented.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 7
Exhaustive research also exists regarding the validity of psychological contracts in non-
profit organisations (Liao-Troth 2005; Nichols 2013; Jamil et al. 2013; Vantilborgh et al.
2011; Willem et al. n.d.; Stirling et al. 2011; Tsai & Lin 2014).
The strength of a psychological contract as exhibited by stakeholders of
charities is based upon years of support and financial contributions, thus
stakeholders feel they have obtained the right to be consulted in strategic
matters
(Nichols 2013, p.1002)
.
Studies have shown that external stakeholders can identify so strongly with the
organisation that “active membership becomes an important part of their self-identity”
(Nichols 2013, p.1000). Therefore, psychological contract breach would have to be severe
in order to cause them to leave the organisation. Yet, Stirling emphasizes, “Increasingly,
however, formalized management practices may be moving organizations away from
processes that meet volunteers’ relational expectations, thereby negatively impacting on
volunteer performance (Milligan and Fyfe 2005; Taylor et al. 2006)” (Stirling et al. 2011,
p.322).
Failing to keep a promise, even if unspoken, can be perceived as a breach of a
psychological contract (Jamil et al. 2013). Atkinson asserts that, “Perceived breach can and
does occur in the absence of actual breach” (Atkinson 2007, p.229). Furthermore, Nichols
(2013, p.993) in his research found that “volunteers’ perceptions of an unsupportive
management had the potential to lead to a contract breach”. While stakeholders and
employees in a corporate entity may not perceive “unsupportive management” to be a
breach of a psychological contract, this is a very real possibility in charities.
PROCESS OR CULTURE
Many books and articles have been written on the fact that organisational culture change
is difficult. These difficulties appear first in implementation and then in solidifying this
change until the new culture becomes engrained (Beer & Nohria 2000; Day 2009;
Schneider et al. 1996; Collins 2005b; Al Murawwi et al. 2014; Tidd et al. 2005).
Change management literature and research exists for the private, public, and the third
sector, respectively. The research examining the engagement of volunteers in a successful
manner in a change process, however, is not as exhaustive. Much literature exists on
8 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
processes that charities can implement to achieve change, but few on the characteristics
of culture common in organisations that have successfully implemented change, and even
less on avoiding breach of psychological contracts (Collins 2005b; Nicolǎescu 2012;
Williams et al. 2012; Caulkins 2008; Vantilborgh et al. 2011; Kasper & Clohesy 2008).
Additional research regarding the involvement of external stakeholders and organisational
culture characteristics would be of great assistance to many charities today.
THEORY O VS. THEORY E
Beer and Nohria (2000) identified that Theory O change (see Table 1) is often utilized in
organisations that “have strong, long-held, commitment-based psychological contracts
with their employees”. Such a description is certainly apt of volunteer funded and
supported charities, and as such, it would seem Theory O change is a preferred change
theory. This raises the question whether there are other characteristics of change, which
exist in charities that have implemented change? Moreover, if so, what steps can be
implemented to affect a change?
INSPIRING CHANGE
James (2012) looked at issues of organisational culture inside organisations, which work
largely on organisational development. James writes, “While transformation is the core
TT
A
A
B
B
L
L
E
E
1
1
-
-
T
T
H
H
E
E
O
O
R
R
Y
Y
O
O
V
V
S
S
.
.
T
T
H
H
E
E
O
O
R
R
Y
Y
E
E
(
(
B
B
E
E
E
E
R
R
A
A
N
N
D
D
N
N
O
O
H
H
R
R
I
I
A
A
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
)
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 9
purpose of most churches and Christian organisations, they are often not good at their
own transformation” (James 2012, p.12). All too often, organisations that focus on
organisational development pay little attention to their own development of organisational
culture.
One of the strengths of James’ work (2012) is his involvement of key characteristics in
psychological contracts, emotions, and emotional ownership — which are strong factors
in the relationship between volunteers and leadership in charities.
Hofstede (1990; 2001) examined a variety of common characteristics. These
organisational characteristics are, however, not organisational culture characteristics.
James (2012) identifies steps to creating change, but little in the way of transforming
organisational culture to create a culture of change.
EMPOWERMENT
Kappelman and Richards (1996) discovered a link between employee empowerment and
employee adaptability to change. This is further corroborated by Price and Palmer (2013),
whose research supports the connection between empowerment and malleability,
replacing empowerment with autonomy, and will be further discussed in the findings and
analysis. Similar research on the link between volunteer’s empowerment and adaptability
to change is lacking.
There is, in fact, little guidance in these texts about the way people should relate to one
another, including stakeholders, as charities seek to implement change. While many
narrow the scope of change and type of culture by writing about the specific challenges
and nature of charities, little focus is given to developing organisational culture
characteristics of collaboration and empowerment (Atkinson 2007; Collins 2005a;
Cunningham et al. 2011; Fletcher et al. 2003; Fuchs 2012; Gill 2010; Nichols 2013).
Chapman (2014) identified that “change initiatives” fail when they are not supported by a
culture change. The question remains: how can an organisation move from a change
process and strategies to a culture of change?
10 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
LEADERSHIP
It was not initially the focus of this research to specifically investigate the role of leadership
in creating a culture of change; however, as the research will show, this is vital to the
successful implementation of change. The research objectives do include examining
decision-making and communication, and these are certainly aspects of leadership — but
in the development of the questionnaires, these objectives were not related to leadership
but the change process.
Brown, as quoted in Kumle et al., and Covey both identify that leadership is about being
concerned with the “big picture”, while management focuses more on daily operations
(Kumle et al. 2006; Covey 1999). Covey (2004) and his team in
4 Disciplines of Execution
further developed this
. “
The Wildly Important Goal (WIG)” is the goal that must be
achieved, or nothing else achieved really matters. There is then nothing more vital to an
executive leader than the future of the organisation.
Thus, if the assertions of Gill, Fuchs, Fletcher, Vrontis, Bolden, Nauk, Farey, Bess,
Malnight, and many others are correct, organisations must adapt to rapidly changing
circumstances. Change must be one of the prime focuses of the leader (Gill 2010; Fuchs
2012; Fletcher et al. 2003; Vrontis & Thrassou 2013; Bolden et al. 2008; Nauk 2013; Farey
1993; Bess et al. 2009; Malnight et al. 2013). Regrettably, none of these authors focused
time or energy on how to establish a foundation that will enable an organisation to evolve
and adapt to changing conditions on a regular basis.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS
Studies have shown that transformational leaders are more effective at achieving change
than transactional leaders (Anderson & Anderson 2010; Rusch & Others 1991; Aydogdu &
Asikgil n.d.; Aitken & Higgs 2010). Burns (1995), the first to write on transforming
leadership, defines it as “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts
followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents”. Faith or value based
charities often seek to fulfil a task or function their volunteers and funders view as vital, yet
that these supporters are not able to accomplish themselves. As such, the idea that
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 11
leaders and volunteers perceive themselves as moral agents is quite reasonable (Bolden et
al. 2008).
Social aptitude rates were high in a variety of studies conducted in the last 20 years, as a
skill set required by change leaders (Cavazotte et al. 2012; Whittington et al. 2005; Stein
2013). Empowerment and autonomy are keys to creating a culture of change according to
Kappelman and Richard (1996) and Price and Palmer (2013). This further supports the
idea that transformational leadership is helpful in producing change.
Bass developed Burns’ concept of Transforming Leadership, calling it Transformational
Leadership:
Superior leadership performance transformational leadership occurs
when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they
generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group,
and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the
good of the group.
(Bass 1990, p.21)
.
It becomes clear then, the role effectively managing the emotional aspects plays in change
management, especially in relationship with external stakeholders.
Wright (1995), in
Managerial Leadership
classified leadership into four ‘styles’ of theories.
It would seem that Wright was merely drawing from the previous work outlined in
Managerial Grid
(Blake & Mouton 1964)
.
Blake and Mouton examined leadership styles
against a two-axis model (concern for task and concern for people). Initially identifying 81
different management styles, Blake and Mouton conclude that five styles are significant
(see Fig. 2).
CountryClubManager TeamManager
ImpoverishedLeader AuthorityObedience
Middleofthe
RoadManager
FFIIGGUURREE 22 -- MMAANNAAGGEERRIIAALL GGRRIIDD,, ((BBLLAAKKEE && MMOOUUTTOONN 11996644))
12 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
Their findings led them to conclude that the best managerial style places importance on
both concern for task and concern for people. In the evaluation of all managerial styles,
Blake and Mouton are dealing with one-directional styles (DeRue 2011). This does not
account for the change in expected styles of leadership, as illustrated by Malnight’s (2013)
research (see Table 2).
Shipper and Davy, in their research, identified six leadership skills that are prevalent:
Participation
Facilitation
Recognition
Planning
Time emphasis
Control of details
TT
A
A
B
B
L
L
E
E
2
2
-
-
L
L
E
E
A
A
D
D
E
E
R
R
S
S
H
H
I
I
P
P
P
P
R
R
E
E
F
F
E
E
R
R
E
E
N
N
C
C
E
E
S
S
,
,
M
M
A
A
L
L
N
N
I
I
G
G
H
H
T
T
E
E
T
T
A
A
L
L
.
.
,
,
2
2
0
0
1
1
3
3
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 13
These skills are in agreement with exiting literature on Transformational Leadership
(Shipper et al. 2014, p.373). However, Shipper et al. (2014) identified an additional
classification of “pressuring skills”, which is defined as, “the ability to apply the
appropriate insistence for the accomplishment of goals”.
Interestingly, Shipper et al. (2014) profess:
The results did not support the arguments that different skill sets are necessary
to be an effective manager in different cultures, contrary to P2. Thus, contrary
to the body of research that suggests the need to manage to culture (Hofstede,
2001; House et al., 2004), our results reveal a consistent pattern of skills that
seem to reinforce the need for the same ‘basic’ management skills in each
culture (p.390).
In support of the quote above, Shipper et al. (2014) concluded, “successful use of certain
skills has a positive impact on employee attitudes…Committed and satisfied employees
may indeed be more productive for a given manager”(Shipper et al. 2014). If this skill set
is effective in a variety of settings, including as related to employee satisfaction, can some
of the aspects of these skills be useful in creating a culture of change — particularly as
related to external stakeholders in charities?
Similarly, Doh and Quigley (2014) argued for ‘Responsible Leadership’ and state that there
exists a link “between the consideration of stakeholder needs and psychological benefits to
followers.” (Doh & Quigley 2014)
Thus, Doh, and Quigley propose that Responsible Leadership is not only effective in terms
of employee satisfaction and job performance, but that “leaders who take an open and
inclusive approach to understanding and incorporating the views of a diverse set of
stakeholders into executive decision making may have a positive impact” (Doh & Quigley
2014, p.270).
The distinction between the existing theory of Servant Leadership (Greenleaf 1977) and the
newer concept of Responsible Leadership (Pearce et al. 2014) is not readily clear, but the
latter is broader and uses modern concepts, such as Corporate Social Responsibility,
which Servant Leadership did not.
14 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
21ST CENTURY LEADER
A recently developed leadership model, primarily designed for leadership development, is
O’Connell’s (2014) Universal Leadership Framework (see Table 3). Based on research of
20th and 21st century leadership literature, O’Connell argues that five “Webs of Belief” 2
exist. O’Connell proposes that by focusing on these five areas, leaders can then be
developed to handle a variety of situations in a variety of contexts.
In particular, the area of Flaneur may be useful in seeking to create a culture of change in
charities.
COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK
Debate exists about the viability of both measuring and delineating organisational culture
(Detert et al. 2000). In spite of the debate, one framework for assessing organisational
2
Web of Belief Quine proposed that our system of beliefs are so intertwined and
interconnected that they are better represented by a ”web” (Quine, 1970).
TT
A
A
B
B
L
L
E
E
3
3
-
-
U
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
A
A
L
L
L
L
E
E
A
A
D
D
E
E
R
R
S
S
H
H
I
I
P
P
F
F
R
R
A
A
M
M
E
E
W
W
O
O
R
R
K
K
(
(
O
O
'
'
C
C
O
O
N
N
N
N
E
E
L
L
2
2
0
0
1
1
4
4
)
)
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 15
culture that has been widely accepted and utilized is the Competing Values Framework.
Cameron and Quinn (2006) established the Competing Values Framework, which is a two-
axis model, designed to examine existing organisational culture utilising the
Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI).
Detert et al. (2000) integrative review of the literature identified eight common
dimensions of organizational culture:
the basis of truth and rationality in the organisation
the nature of time and time horizon
motivation
stability vs. change/innovation
orientation to work/co-workers
isolation vs. collaboration
control vs. autonomy
internal vs. external
(Yu & Wu 2009, p.40)
.
Yu contends that the Competing Values Framework, though only two-dimensional,
“incorporates the essence of the eight commonly accepted dimensions mentioned above
into its structure” (Yu & Wu 2009). Regardless of the framework, a need for a new style of
communication is required (Xiao et al. 2003).
While Competing Values Framework has been widely used, in a variety of circumstances,
there remains criticism of the validity of Competing Values Framework. In particular,
Hartnell et al. (2011) have conducted research regarding the Competing Values Framework
and found that, “identifying ‘dominant’ culture types may be of limited utility because they
do not fully account for organizational culture’s bandwidth”(Hartnell et al. 2011).
Additionally, Büschgens et al. (2013) stated, “deliberate cultural change is challenged by
other researchers who emphasize the idiosyncrasy and complexity of values, beliefs, and
basic assumptions that form an organization’s culture” (p.776). Despite the criticism, in
looking at the presentations of both Hartnell and Büschgens, one can see that in a broad
16 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
sense, both support the findings of Cameron and Quinn and even that of Quinn and
Rorhbach (Hartnell et al. 2011; Büschgens et al. 2013).
Hofstede outlined many factors upon which he evaluated cultures. Most framework
models are two-dimensional; thus, it does seem that these presents only a partial picture
and, thereby, a limited understanding of organisational culture (Dionne et al. 2014). The
adequate measurement of organisational culture based on two axes is a subject of debate
(Molloy 1998; Ackermann & Eden 2011).
DECISION MAKING AND TRANSMISSION
STAKEHOLDER THEORY
The type of change process that this research examines is broad, drastic, and strategic. In
democratic organisations, such processes often involve stakeholders to some degree or
other, and as such, it is necessary to examine the involvement and inclusion of the
stakeholders in the process.
One of the most important tasks during strategy making is the management of
the interface between the many (often competing) demands of an
organization’s different stakeholders in relation to its strategic goals
(Ackermann & Eden 2011, p.179)
.
Literature has shown that successful implementation of change is not merely about
leaders making decisions but about the process of involvement and inclusion of key
people. Ansoff writes, “Mintzberg attacks the rational model of learning by pointing out
that it decouples strategy formulation from implementation, which causes organizational
resistance and even failure of implementation” (Wiley 2012, p.458).
The Stakeholder Theory was first introduced by Freeman (1984), in his work,
Strategic
Management: A Stakeholder Approach.
Freeman also developed the
Power-Interest Grid
(Fig. 4) to assist in determining the stakeholders and what focus should be given to each.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 17
Donaldson and Preston (1995) contend that there are three areas of delineation of
stakeholder theory:
Descriptive Stakeholder Theory
Instrumental Stakeholder Theory
Normative Stakeholder Theory
Descriptive Stakeholder Theory can best be summarized as expressing the nature of the
characteristics and behaviour of an organisation to understand how to relate to
stakeholders. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory contends that managing stakeholders will
benefit a corporation’s profitability, and in the case of non-profits, could benefit financial
involvement and support as well as volunteer man-hours. Finally, Normative Stakeholder
Theory relates to the idea of stakeholders having interests in the organization, and as
such, it seems to be foundational to all other views of stakeholder management (Freeman
1984; Donaldson et al. 1995).
Malnight (2013) proposes in his research into the desired leadership styles of various
generations, the increasing need for involvement, collaboration, and empowerment — as
shown previously in Table 2:
Until fairly recently the power to shape and influence, others’ actions belonged
to a relatively small group of individuals and institutions: parents, politicians,
religious leaders, the mass media and so on. Today the picture is very different.
The shift from industrial to knowledge work, the rise of the empowered
FFIIGGUURREE 33 -- PPOOWWEERR -- IINNTTEERREESSTT GGRRIIDD ((FFRREEEEMMAANN 11998844))
18 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
individual, and the rapid growth and influence of social media, combined with
deteriorating trust in traditional institutions is expanding the range of players
who shape the world
(Malnight et al. 2013, p.30)
.
Though Malnight’s research was among employees, these shifts are being seen among
other stakeholders as well. James writes, “In managing any change process it is important
to carefully analyse who will be affected by the change, to what extent and how important
their support is to the process” (James 2012, p.87).
James has created a version of the “Stakeholder Grid” (Fig. 5) to identify a process of
evaluation regarding the stakeholders, though, in contrast to Freeman’s grid, it evaluates
stakeholders as related to a specific proposed change.
Furthermore, James argues for a collaborative process, “Organisational change requires
organisational shifts. This means a critical mass of people have to be supportive of the
change and pulling in the same direction” (James 2012, p.91).
It would stand to reason that some of the writings of Cameron and Quinn, regarding
reaching consensus could then apply to stakeholders in the social sector.
While many of the qualities required of leaders in the third sector are similar to
those leading in other sectors, there are distinct skills and behaviours needed to
be successful in the sector as a result of its multiple stakeholder relationships
and general complexity that is qualitatively different from the public and private
sectors
(Hopkins 2010, p.26)
.
Figure 5
- Stakeholder Grid, (James 2012)
FF
I
I
G
G
U
U
R
R
E
E
4
4
-
-
S
S
T
T
A
A
K
K
E
E
H
H
O
O
L
L
D
D
E
E
R
R
G
G
R
R
I
I
D
D
(
(
J
J
A
A
M
M
E
E
S
S
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
,
,
P
P
.
.
8
8
7
7
)
)
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 19
The gained insight from the research on Stakeholder Theory will assist charities seeking to
implement change, particularly in understanding the issues of
AUTHORITY AND MANDATE
Another issue in the decision making process of charities is who has authority and
mandate to make strategic changes. Dimitrios et al. (2013) discovered in their research,
executed by Phipps and Burbach as well as Taliento and Silverman, that strategic leaders
who have served both for profit and non profit organisations adapt their leadership style in
the following ways:
smaller scope of authority
a wider range of stakeholders who expect consensus
the requirement that non-profit CEO’s pay more attention to communications
the need for innovative metrics to monitor performance
the challenge of building an effective organisation with limited resources and
training.
(Dimitrios et al. 2013, p.277)
The first three items on this list are of particular interest for this paper, as related to this
research. If a smaller “scope of authority” exists, to whom does this authority transfer?
Does this authority transfer to formal governmental structures, such as the Board of
Directors — or does this authority transfer to informal structures, essentially external
volunteer stakeholders?
Fletcher discovered that “developing organizational strategy with stakeholder involvement
is a major challenge for non-profit organizations” (Fletcher et al. 2003, p.510). Thus, one
can conclude that stakeholders in non-profits maintain some of the decision-making
authority in strategic areas. This would include some processes of change
implementation.
Christensen argues for the need for a “Culture of Change in Charities”:
Organizations today are confronted daily with the need for change. A major
challenge for organizations is to develop both a culture or climate and
leadership strategies that allow them to cope with challenges such as
downsizing, re-engineering, flattening structures, global competition, and the
introduction of new technology
(Christensen 2014, p.359)
.
20 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
Perhaps these authors assume that everyone is familiar with Friedman’s (2005) work
The
World is Flat
and the thinking that Friedman proposes.
While the determination that corporate structures are increasingly being “flattened” may
be relatively new in terms of leadership literature, the converse has long been accepted
that there is a power structure and hierarchy. Hofstede’s Power Distance Dimension has
been, for some time, a key component in assessing culture (Hofstede et al. 1990;
Hofstede 2010; Senior 2002). Based upon much of the current research, it would seem
that this Power Distance is shifting in many organisations (Malnight et al. 2013; Kumle et
al. 2006; Fletcher et al. 2003; James 2012; Hopkins 2010).
The advent of the Internet, email, and social media certainly has altered the way we
communicate, and perhaps even the expectations of involvement among stakeholders
(Wee 2013; Tidd & Bessant 2011; Osula & Ng 2014; T. L. Friedman 2005).
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The factor of changing methods of communication was addressed as early as 1998:
Increasingly, external factors are forcing the pace of change in union
communications. There have been major developments in the technology of
communications: telephones, telex, facsimiles, videos, computers; all enabling
the flow and frequency of communication to be increased
(Warren 1998, p.44)
.
Anderson and Anderson (2010) declared that often leaders have come to realize the
importance of communication because of the chaos that arose from a lack of
communication(Anderson & Anderson 2010). They expound on why the traditional
methods of communication may not be effective in a change process as:
Typically, corporate communications people are wired to inform, not engage. If
your changes are major, then your communications require —demand! —
methods that get people’s attention and engage them in the change dialogue.
Corporate communications people are trained to write good copy, but are not
skilled in the organisation effectiveness approaches that promote employee
engagement
(Anderson & Anderson 2010, p.2)
.
Sadly, Groysberg discovered that engrained organisational culture undermines attempts to
change informal and interactive style of communication. (Groysberg & Slind 2012, p.80).
Kasper (2008) used technology based descriptions to assert that communication can also
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 21
be viewed as either “push” or “pull.” In spite of the terminology used, it seems that largely
what is being identified is that leaders need to make appropriate use of both formal and
informal communication channels and adopt a means of communication that is more
inclusive and enabling dialogue. The idea of formal and informal communication channels
has existed since before Melcher and Beller’s (1967) work
.
However, the use of informal
communication channels, including “Town Hall Meetings” or other types of open forums
and discussions, has increased significantly since that time. (Johnson et al. 1994; Litterst
& Eyo 1982; Melcher & Beller 1967)
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the extensive research identified above as related to the need for collaboration
and empowerment in the pursuit of successful change implementation, additional
research regarding these factors as related to successful involvement of volunteers and
avoidance of psychological contract breach as pertains to faith and value based charities
would be warranted.
An examination of the Competing Values Framework
(Cameron & Quinn 2006) and the
two dimensions versus a possible third dimension of collaboration/empowerment might
provide useful insight into the needed process for being able to create a culture of change
in charities.
Furthermore, Osula and Ng state that collaboration is the key to survival for non-profits:
Whether non-profits survive in the new cultural environment will depend on the
extent to which leaders and followers within these organizations, working in
collaboration with each other and partner agencies that include key funders are
able to agree core foundational principles, lead with an integrity that comes
from a core set of values, and attend to the increasingly urgent demand to be
self-aware, connected, purposeful, follower-focused, culturally competent, and
future oriented.
(Osula & Ng 2014, p.100)
There are many opportunities for research in the area of organisational change
characteristics as related to charities. As previous research has shown, vital areas of
consideration include collaboration, empowerment, communication, and involvement as
non-profit organisations seek to be the change that many seek to promote.
22 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
The leadership styles that have served well in the past and in other settings are perhaps
not as well suited in today’s society — and leaders of non-profit organisations must adopt
their leadership style to one that is less the executive leader and increasingly that of a
facilitator and catalyst (Collins 2005c).
Perhaps in pursuit of these characteristics, an organisation can find itself in a position to
determine the needed change and succeed in implementing this change. That is the goal
of this research.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 23
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The review of existing literature and research provides a basis for further exploration and
evaluation of the research question identified in Chapter 1. Various frameworks exist that
can be useful in the research design process. Some of the various methodologies
presented include Saunders et al., Flick, and Creswell. Flick (2011) outlined the decisions
in the research process, as shown in Figure 5, and presents these choices as being
independent but related decisions.
In a similar way, Creswell (2009) presents another model whereby these decisions are
separate but interrelated choices, as seen in Figure 6. A more robust framework is
presented by Saunders et al. (2009, p.108), The Research Onion (see Fig. 7).
FF
I
I
G
G
U
U
R
R
E
E
5
5
-
-
D
D
E
E
C
C
I
I
S
S
I
I
O
O
N
N
S
S
I
I
N
N
T
T
H
H
E
E
R
R
E
E
S
S
E
E
A
A
R
R
C
C
H
H
P
P
R
R
O
O
C
C
E
E
S
S
S
S
,
,
(
(
F
F
L
L
I
I
C
C
K
K
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
)
)
FFIIGGUURREE 66 -- FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK FFOORR DDEESSIIGGNN,, ((CCRREESSWWEELLLL 22000099))
24 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
The “Research Onion”, in contrast to the frameworks presented respectively by Flick and
Creswell, requires that decisions must be made at each layer that will affect the other
choices in this process. This does not always limit the options of choices, but can in some
cases.
The chosen research methodology for this research was a cross-sectional, fixed, mixed
data gathering strategy. The reason for the choice of a mixed data gathering strategy is
that a pluralistic approach is recommended for social sciences research (Creswell 2014).
To examine these choices more closely, the six layers of “The Research Onion", presented
by Saunders et al. will provide the structure for this chapter.
RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
It is important to consider the end goal at the onset of the research design. This will affect
the researcher’s paradigm. The research question seeks to determine if a common set of
characteristics exist; therefore, the research philosophy, as indicated in Table 4, has a
stronger basis in epistemology (Janićijević 2011) than ontology (Langley et al. 2013) or
axiology (Jennings et al. 2010). An epistemological paradigm is therefore chosen for the
research philosophy.
The empirical research seeks to provide guidance to NMS, as supported by the secondary
research. The goal of the research is to determine if there is a set of common
characteristics need for the successful implementation of change in charitites, therefore, a
pragmatic philosophy fits best with the objectives of the research. Having established the
FF
I
I
G
G
U
U
R
R
E
E
7
7
-
-
R
R
E
E
S
S
E
E
A
A
R
R
C
C
H
H
O
O
N
N
I
I
O
O
N
N
,
,
(
(
S
S
A
A
U
U
N
N
D
D
E
E
R
R
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
L
L
.
.
2
2
0
0
0
0
9
9
)
)
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 25
paradigm and philosophy, the next step is to examine the best approach based upon
research goals and objectives.
RESEARCH APPROACH
In consideration of the research goals and objectives, as well as the decisions made about
the research paradigm and philosophy, it is clear that an inductive approach to the
research question would be beneficial.
Befring (2004, p.67) asserts, “for Inductive Approach our point of departure is often a
problem we have experienced”. This is not always the case, but in areas related to
perceived psychological contract breach, this would certainly be an apt description.
Nichols (2013, p.1002) identified in his research, “inductive approach would elicit
volunteers’ and managers’ perceptions of the elements of the [psychological] contract,
which elements they regard as most important, and where they discern an imbalance”. It
is for these reasons that an inductive approach was chosen.
TT
A
A
B
B
L
L
E
E
4
4
-
-
D
D
E
E
C
C
I
I
S
S
I
I
O
O
N
N
S
S
I
I
N
N
T
T
H
H
E
E
R
R
E
E
S
S
E
E
A
A
R
R
C
C
H
H
P
P
R
R
O
O
C
C
E
E
S
S
S
S
,
,
(
(
S
S
A
A
U
U
N
N
D
D
E
E
R
R
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
L
L
.
.
2
2
0
0
0
0
9
9
)
)
26 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
METHODICAL CHOICE
There is a significant amount of guidance in the decisions that have been made thus far
regarding the research design. Choosing an epistemological pragmatic paradigm helps to
narrow the scope of methodical choices available in the research methodology. Utilizing
an inductive approach narrows options even further.
Using a combination of mixed methods, including pre-interviews (qualitative), a survey
(quantitative) and follow-up interviews (qualitative), will “provide an in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon from multiple angles” (Bak 2011, p.81). Furthermore,
the mixed methods approach enables triangulation (Yauch & Steudel 2003):
Bryman (1988) noted that triangulation could enhance the quality of
information and provide mutual confirmation. In this study the use of the
questionnaire to complement the qualitative data analysis was seen as an
effective way to achieve the triangulation of findings
(Bak 2011, p.81)
.
Mixed methods may present a unique set of challenges in reconciling the data, as “mixed
methods may divide, collide or cohere” (Charmaz 2014, p.324).
The utilisation of a fixed questionnaire will enable the researcher to determine if
similarities exist in various organisations, and potentially if similarities exist at similar
levels or within similar roles across organisations (Bak 2011).
As mentioned, the organisations involved in this research include a selection of charities,
primarily charities that are volunteer-funded and supported. For the purposes of
evaluation and cross-examination, the research also included non-profit organisations,
which receive funding largely from clients or government.
STRATEGY
A significant portion of the existing literature on the Grounded Theory focuses on
qualitative research. Yet, the birth of Grounded Theory combines Glaser’s quantitative
background with that of Lazarefeld’s qualitative experience (Charmaz 2014). Thereby, a
mixed method research methodology falls nicely within Grounded Theory in spite of a
general tendency towards qualitative research when conducting Grounded Theory
research.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 27
The research was divided into several stages, as listed in Table 5.
During the first stage, a research questionnaire was developed, based upon existing
research questionnaires and literature related to implementation of change. This
questionnaire sought to determine:
If a change had been attempted
Did the organisation benefit from these changes?
What organizational culture:
existed before the change?
existed after the implementation?
What were the perceived long-term results of this implementation on:
Financial contributions?
Volunteer man-hours?
Employee turnover/recruitment?
Trust in the leadership?
What organisational culture characteristics were present that assisted, or would
have assisted, in the successful implementation of change?
The advantage of this plan is that the post-interviews allow for additional understanding of
the questionnaires, which provide a cross-sectional perspective of change throughout all
levels of several organizations. The post-interviews provide an opportunity to better
understand the quantitative data. The quantitative data will provide a broader perspective
of characteristics of culture, and guidance for the implementation of change in charities
the future.
Grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for
collecting and analysing qualitative data to construct theories from the data
TTAABBLLEE 55 -- SSTTAAGGEESS OOFF RREESSEEAARRCCHH
28 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
themselves […] Grounded theory begins with inductive data, invokes iterative
strategies of going back and forth between data and analysis, uses comparative
methods, and keeps you interacting and involved with your data and emerging
analysis
(Charmaz 2014, p.1)
.
Most importantly, the proposed plan of research is kept within Grounded Theory repeated
cycle of data analysis. (Charmaz 2014).
TIME HORIZON
There are many advantages to longitudinal research, particularly as related to Grounded
Theory. Yet, typically, this theory normally examines a phenomenon, thus it is cross-
sectional. In keeping a set period of 7 months, it is also natural that a cross-sectional time
horizon be chosen — especially with the necessities of repeated data analysis. Thereby, a
cross-sectional approach was chosen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
An inductive approach was chosen to see if the findings from the empirical research
support or negate existing research as related to the social sector and other arenas. The
primary method of data collection employed was a questionnaire with additional support
of interviews in the design and interpretation of the quantitative data. An effort was made
to create a non-biased questionnaire, to facilitate the utilisation of Grounded Theory and
Critical Incident Technique for the empirical research (Green & Binsardi 2014).
PRE-INTERVIEWS
For the initial interviews, five participants (3 women, 2 men, 1 person under 30, three 30-
50 years old, and one over 50) were chosen from focus organisations, and the interviews
typically ran slightly more than 45 minutes in length. Interviewees were asked to describe
characteristics that they felt were helpful in the successful implementation of change.
Additional probing questions were then utilised to further clarify how they defined each
word, to ascertain if respondents were using different words for the same characteristics.
Through the course of these pre-interviews, 64 organisational culture characteristics were
identified, which were then pared down to 50 characteristics of a unique nature to be the
basis for the online questionnaire. (See Appendix A)
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 29
QUESTIONNAIRE
Following the pre-interviews, a draft questionnaire was drawn. Five beta testers, completed
the questionnaire, conducting three rounds of testing. The main reason for extensive beta
testing was to determine if the questions were unbiased, and adjustments were made to
wording that could persuade respondents to answer in a particular manner.
The questionnaire was collected using an online service (Survey Monkey) and was sent to
159 employees or volunteers in 41 organizations. Largely, the respondents were divided
into three categories: org.1 (n=55), org.6 (n=47), and other (n=57). (See Fig. 8)
The four categories of respondents, as shown in Figure 9, were:
1. Executive leadership (n=11)
2. Mid-level leadership (n=50)
3. Frontline Employees (n=57)
4. Volunteers, Board Members, and Stakeholders (n=41)3
3 Volunteers, Board Members and ‘Stakeholders’ are analysed as one group, because of
this is the group of people labelled stakeholders in this research.
Figure
8 - Percentage of respondents by organisation
30 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
Recruitment of respondents was on-going during the period of development, design, and
testing of the questionnaire. Registrants were given the choice of taking the test in the
following languages: English, Norwegian, French, and German. The German and French
speaking participants were few in numbers and opted to take the test in English. The
number of Norwegian speaking respondents was significant; therefore, the questionnaire
was also made available in Norwegian. For the sake of ease, primarily for the respondents
— but also for the analysis of data — an online survey service was utilised. The online
questionnaire consisted of two parts.
Part one of the questionnaire was distributed both directly to registered individuals and
also by individual organisations to their employees and members. The first part of the
questionnaire can be found in Appendix B (English) and Appendix C (Norwegian).
Part 2 consisted of the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) as designed
by Cameron & Quinn (Cameron & Quinn 2006). The OCAI was utilised to provide a
benchmark against other organisations, “as Kwan and Walker (2004) noted, the
Competing Values Framework has become the dominant model in the quantitative
research on organizational culture” (Yu & Wu 2009, p.39). Additionally, a significant
number of empirical studies “have been published testing the validity and reliability of the
Competing Values Framework and OCAI” (Yu & Wu 2009, p.39). This was also asserted
FF
I
I
G
G
U
U
R
R
E
E
9
9
-
-
P
P
E
E
R
R
C
C
E
E
N
N
T
T
A
A
G
G
E
E
O
O
F
F
R
R
E
E
S
S
P
P
O
O
N
N
D
D
E
E
N
N
T
T
S
S
B
B
Y
Y
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 31
by Naranjo-Valencia, (2011) thus providing the possibility of comparison of this current
research with many previous studies. Cameron and Quinn (2006) also conducted
extensive research into the reliability and validity of the OCAI.
Another advantage to the OCAI is that this has been used in a variety of Norwegian
contexts and situations as well as included in various research papers (Moe & Hye 2014;
Skj 2011). Furthermore, the translation of the questionnaire has been previously vetted for
accuracy and reliability.
There are researchers that regard the ipsative scale, upon which the OCAI is based, as
imprecise and therefore debateable as a valid research scale (Meade 2004; Greer &
Dunlap 1997; Dunlap & Cornwell 1994). Hartnell et al. (2011, p.682) also cautioned that
care must be taken when analysing ipsative scales “because they may produce non-
independent [sic] scores, resulting in spurious correlations as well as potentially
overestimated reliabilities” (Johnson, Wood, & Blinkhorn, 1988; Meade, 2004). Part 2 of
the questionnaire can be found in Appendix D (English) and Appendix E (Norwegian).
After completion of the data collection and assessment from the questionnaires, some
pre-arranged post-interviews were completed to gain a better understanding of the data
collected.
POST-INTERVIEW
The questionnaire deployed allowed for quantitative analysis, but the choice of Grounded
Theory encouraged additional interpretation of the data. Since a pragmatic epistemology
was selected, follow-up conversations among a sampling of respondents were encouraged
to further inform recommendations (Price & Palmer 2013). This was also important to
offset the limitations of analysis of nominal data.
The post-interviews were conducted among employees and volunteer stakeholders of
NMS, as the initial examination of the data indicated a need for clarification regarding
issues unique to volunteer-funded charities.
32 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
VALIDITY
The questions posed in interviews and in the questionnaire related to the respondent’s
belief of what organisational culture characteristics contributed or would have contributed
to the successful implementation of change. Respondents were then grouped according to
a variety of qualities, including organisation, seniority, and position in the organisation.
The results were analysed based on these qualities to present several different views. The
research method utilised triangulation of the survey data with the interviews, which also
helped to confirm validity.
Since a forced ranking system was utilised, it is difficult to ascertain distance between the
characteristics measured, and the results must be interpreted with this in mind. Thus, one
cannot declare the statistical variance between characteristics but can identify the
frequency with which an existing or desired characteristics is ranked more highly.
As each individual completed the questionnaire within a limited period, there was no
attempt to measure a change in maturation, perception, or understanding of the existing
culture.
RELIABILITY
The research was conducted in a variety of organisations, and the respondents reported
on a process of change that sometimes was recent and or, in other cases, took place some
time back. As such, the results should be representative of organisational culture
characteristics present or desired during a change process, without regards to: time
elapsed since the attempted process, length of process, country of origin, or any other
factors.
In order to ensure response validity, strict confidentiality was promised and maintained.
No effort was made to ensure anonymity, as the details of the individual respondent could
be revealed, to the researcher, by the answers to the questions in some cases. However,
assurance was given to respondents that their participation, in the research, would not be
revealed either explicitly or implicitly.
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 33
GENERALISABILITY
A high level of generalisability was achieved through examining a variety of organisations
in a variety of cultures, countries, settings, and structures. The organisations ranged from
smaller, newer organisations with operational budgets of less than 1 million dollars to
larger, older organisations of operational budgets of 30 million dollars. The various
organisations are located in the following countries: the United States of America, United
Kingdom, Australia, and Norway. Respondents came from these countries as well as
Canada, France, Germany, South Africa, New Zealand, and Sweden. By examining the
findings against existing research in both the social sector and other sectors, a greater
understanding of the generalisability of the results is possible.
ETHICS
In pursuit of conduct of research in an ethical manner, the procedures and guidelines as
identified by York St. John University, University Research Ethics Sub Committee (URESC)
(YSJ n.d.) as well as by the Norwegian Person Registry Act of 2014 (Justis- og
beredskapsdepartementet n.d.) were followed. These were chosen as these are the most
specific and strictest guidelines applicable for the country of origin for the various
organisations and individuals involved.
LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE PROBLEMS
The chosen research methodology is not without its limitations, and these limitations and
problems need to be understood in the interpretation of the data. Thus, these limitations
will be explored in advance of the presentations of the findings.
While stratified sampling provides a variety of perspectives, cross-sectional research “will
often provide little insight into how a variable will change over time and may quite often
lead to inaccurate conclusions” (Dauber et al. 2012, p.2). Cross-sectional strategy can limit
the ability to identify successful change considering that the perspectives, history, current
situation, and even organisational culture in each of the organisations can vary so greatly
as to alter the understanding of the terms measured. Drilling down in the depth of the
primary organisation was problematic, partially due to the average age of the volunteers in
34 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
NMS, as the median age was well over 70 — and therefore the utilisation of the online
survey proved to be problematic in achieving a higher response from the stakeholders.
The frequency of responses was the primary analysis of the data, encouraging further
research to further confirm validity; this was chosen to provide a general understanding,
and possible recommendation for NMS.
PSYCHOMETRIC CHALLENGES
Forced ranking provides some known challenges, whereas some respondents may have
struggled to rank an item as they were equally important based on the evaluation of the
respondent. Thereby, extreme caution should be exercised in the presentation of the
findings, and one should not assume that the listed characteristics are presented in a
particular order.
From a psychometric point of view, using forced ranking questions has many problems
because the respondent risks getting more bogged down in the "order" of the ranking
rather than on answering the question. The current construct pits five
statements/characteristics of change against one another and, therefore, had to be
repeated quite a number of times in order to get comparisons. One risk is that this
exhausts the rater, and respondents start checking off boxes to get through it rather than
providing insights about their experience with change.
CONCLUSION
There are challenges and limitations to any research strategy, and the goal is not to find a
research strategy without fault but to be mindful of the challenges of the paradigm,
philosophy, and methodology chosen. Based on the research goals and objectives, as well
as the purpose of the research, an epistemological pragmatic mixed-method cross-
sectional research using a combination of Critical Incident Theory and Grounded Theory
presented itself as the best course of action.
The utilisation and analysis of pre-interviews, questionnaire, and post-interviews provide
many opportunities to evaluate data in the development of a Grounded Theory.
Additionally, this provides the steps necessary for triangulation to further establish validity
Creating A Culture of Change in Charities 35
and reliability. Though these choices are not without limitation, this course of research
was evaluated to be the strategy most closely in line with the goal of identifying if common
organisational characteristics exist in organisations that have successfully implemented
change.
36 Creating A Culture of Change in Charities
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS
In turning to the analysis of the empirical findings, it is imperative that the research goals,
and objectives outlined in Chapter 1, continue to be in focus.
A
A
r
r
e
e
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
e
e
c
c
e
e
r
r
t
t
a
a
i
i
n
n
c
c
h
h
a
a
r
r
a
a
c
c
t
t
e
e
r