Consider the discussion regarding organizational culture (picture listed below) especially the idea that workplace culture is "the way we do things around here" (Palmer, Dunford and Buchanan, 2022, picture listed below). Consider also the six change image behaviors (picture listed below). Finally, consider the driving and restraining forces at work that are (picture listed below) as part of Lewin's Force Field Analysis model.

One definition of organizational culture, therefore, is \"the way We do things around here.\" A more technical denition regards organizational culture as the shared values, beliefs, andm norms that inuence the way employees think, feel, and act toward others, both inside and outside the organization. It is also argued that organizations each have their own distinct \"personality,\" style, ideology, or climate, which gives them their unique identity. For example, walk into a McDonald 's restaurant and note the atmosphere, decor, ghting, sta' attitude toward customers, style and variety of food and drinks, speed of service, cost, and any other details that catch your attention. Next, walk into one of McCormick & Schmick's restaurants and pay attention to those same factors; you will see a different culture. Ann Cunliffe (2008) argues that organizational culture is important because it: I shapes the public image of an organization I inuences organizational effectiveness I provides direction for the company I helps to attract, retain, and motivate staff This issue can be the cause of many problems. Falling sales, customer complaints, staff absenteeism and turnover, and poor public reputation, for example, can oen be attributed to organizational culture. It is therefore not surprising that culture change programs have become popular. Some theorists argue that organizations cannot have distinct cultures in the way that human societies do. But we can accept that criticism and still nd practical value in the concept, if organizational culture is simply taken to cover the values, beLiefs, and norms that shape employeeand managementibehavior. If those behaviors are inappropriate or dysfunctional in some Way, then \"culture\" offers a useful lens through which We can understand Why and what action we can take to change those behaviors. We can also make a distinction between strong and weak organizational cultures (Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992). A strong culture is one in which the organization's values are widely shared and intensely held and mus guide behavior. A weak culture, in contrast, displays little agreement about core values or about expected behaviors. Strong cultures thus suggest emotional anachment and commitment to an organization, unity in approach, and 'Walking the talk." Much of the commentary on this topic thus assumes that companies with strong cultures perform better. The quotes that opened this section, from Lenovo's chief executive, support this View. We also know oat organizational culture can cause serious problems. What happened with the oil exploration company BP provides an iconic example of what can happen when culture goes wrong. E Force-Field Analysis Force-field analysis is a popular diagnostic, developed in the mid-twentieth century by Kurt Lewin (1943; 1951). As a change diagnostic, this tool has two main purposes. First, it can be used to assess whether or not an organization is ready for a particular change initiative. Second, if readiness or receptiveness is low, force-field analysis can help to identify and prioritize the preparation or "groundwork" that may be required before implementation can begin. The analysis involves identifying the forces that are, respectively, driving and restraining movement toward a given set of outcomes, Page 123 called the "target situation." The "field" is usually drawn like this: Target situation: develop customer-orientation Driving Forces - Restraining Forces static sales difficult to recruit capable sales staff increasingly aggressive competition high turnover among part-time staff rising number of customer complaints trained and capable staff are "poached" brand being criticized on social media our competitors face similar problems new chief executive supports this move cost of customer relationships training This example is artificial but used to illustrate the approach. It is unusual, for example, to have the same number of forces on the driving side as on the restraining side. Having constructed the field, the forces that have been identified can each be weighted or scored, say from 1 (weak) to 10 (strong), to produce a rough calculus to the balance of forces. This scoring procedure can give the analysis a false image of quantified rigor. More important than the forces and their scores is the discussion that produces the analysis. Who conducts this analysis is thus also important, often a project team or steering group. The underpinning discussion can expose wide differences in perception, both of the forces in play and of their strength. The debate helps to either resolve those differences or at least allow those involved to know how their opinions vary and how those differences have arisen. If the driving forces are overwhelming, then the change can go ahead without significant problems. If the restraining forces are overwhelming, then the change may have to be abandoned, or delayed until conditions have improved. However, if the driving and restraining forces are more or less in balance, then the analysis can be used to plan appropriate action. The extent to which the force field is balanced is a matter of judgement. Used in a group setting, this method helps to structure what can often be an untidy discussion covering a wide range of factors and differing perceptions. Managing a balanced force field to promote movement toward the target situation involves the following considerations: 1. Increasing the driving forces can often result in an increase in the resisting forces. This means that the current equilibrium does not change but instead is maintained with increased tension. 2. Reducing the resisting forces is preferable, as this allows movement toward the desired outcomes or target situation without increasing tension. 3. Group norms are an important force in resisting and shaping organizational change.LO 2.3 The Six-Images Framework How are our images or mental models of organizational change formed? To answer this question, Palmer and Dunford (2002) argue that two dimensions of change are particularly important. The first dimension concerns choice of change management approach. The second concerns expectations concerning the outcomes of the change process. Of the many dimensions of the change management process, these two are particularly important because they concern the how, or the way in which change will be implemented, and the results, or what the change hopes to achieve. With regard to the first of these dimensions, change management can be seen as either a controlling or a shaping activity. These images represent extreme points on a continuum and reflect the traditional distinction between autocratic/directive and participative/engaging management styles (e.g., Katz et al., 1950; Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958). Second, there are three broad images of the expected change outcomes, which can be seen as either intended, partially intended, or unintended. Outcomes do not always depend entirely on the decisions and actions of those who are implementing the change. Change outcomes can be affected by events and developments outside the organization, beyond the direct control of change managers, whose intentions may be swamped by those Page 33 external factors. How change managers understand those outcomes thus influences their image of the change management role. Combining these models of managing change and of expectations of change outcomes leads to the six images summarized in table 2.1: director, coach, navigator, interpreter, caretaker, nurturer. Images of Managing Images of Expected Controlling Shaping Change Outcomes (Roles and Activities) (Enhancing Capabilities) Intended director coach Partially intended navigator interpreter Unintended caretaker nurturer TABLE 2.1 Images of Change Management