The program was supported by an information and support from trade unions and by grants and publicity from the federal government, by establishing the Best Practice Consultancy (BPC). BPC have appointed two full time and three part time internal facilitators in each firm, with the introduction of benchmarking, to start with integrating management with the shop floor in day to day business by setting the steps, first climate setting through two communications about the programme with all employees and establishment of a management union partnership to manage the programme, appointment and training of internal facilitators and introduce leadership training for owners and senior managers, creation of cellular work teams, and introduce quality assurance measures with project management by teams.
BPC training model made to suit the individual firm, moving away from the original, BPC consultants provided the direction for the best practice programme, and directed the process in the workplace and liaised between the firms, the consultants and the subnet management committee. As the programme started on 1994, and in order to assess change over a 12-month period, each question required respondents to rate their current (1995) attitude to a given statement and their attitude 12 months previously (1994). The practice had a limitation on accurate respondents; member’s finds difficulty in remembering their opinion of one year ago.
The analyses were base on significant differences in attitude toward 16 dominions over 12 month’s period, and differences in perception between managers and non mangers. The approach used has a positive impacts on the process used, it is a good theory and it help in changing and improving the five firms organisation culture. However, changing five firm cultures creates uncertainty and trauma. Successful culture change requires a burning platform and clear vision. There are few points that should be considered before implementing the best practice program.
The study should evaluate the effect of the change in the industry competition, between the five firms and global competitors, and the need for new organisational structure, strategy, financial requirements, and technological advances. Also it should consider the management and employee uncertainty, fear, and even mistrust should be considered. A trusting relationship is to be developed.
Leader should understand the employee culture in each firm and the way that the five firms can help to build in methods for easing the process and increasing the likelihood that changes will succeed. Many people talk about “resistance” as if it were an irrational response to be overcome with rational persuasion. In fact, it is always the case that, from an individual’s point of view, one’s own behavior is rational.
Mabey and Salaman argument that “a successful strategic training and development model should include senior management support, the involvement of line managers and the motivation of trainees linked to the shared diagnosis of training need and relevance to training and development activities chosen” is valid and should be considered for BPC model . Firm four overseas markets was already well advanced in quality improvement, it believe that BPC programme had little to offer in terms of business improvement. It decides to early withdrawal from the best practice training programme. The training programme in this situation should consider the deference and implement advance training programme for those how had the experience.
A summary from the study shows that within responses in the general comments varied from 50% of respondents in one firm to just one response in another. Most comments were negative or cynical about management. The highest score indicate most positively perceived B&A dimension. The major benefits from belonging to the network were, information sharing, and increased business opportunities and contact with competitors and supplies. The programme benefited 4 firms of the 5 firms. Its Success was in producing change in the areas of; quality improvement, benchmarking, customer focus, training, and worker participation planning and problem solving. It had little or no effect on employee commitment, work place relationship, structure, greater job autonomy, and job satisfaction.
The most improvement arising from network membership had been made in the areas of marketing and quality assurance, survey indicate that little had been achieved from human resource management in quality improvement. (Anthony 1994) The large number of differences between management and non management on almost every dimension in three of the five firms seems to support the view that a unified corporate culture is not workplace culture.
(Werner 1988), (Deal and Kennedy 1982) and Payne 1990) There was also little evidence to support the strong/ weak culture notion suggested by while (Wiernet 1988): Maintained that the non unitary cultures were weaker than those with grater concerns where culture is learned and can be consciously changed by mangers to improve organization performance. An interesting paradox emerged as firm 5, the firm with the most negative culture in terms of the lowest average score, had the strongest culture in terms of the consensus between management and non management on all dimensions.
Firm 4 has the least benefit from the program, it has reduce the job satisfaction between employee, while firm 4 was having the highest score on 1994 and it continued to have the highest score on 1995. On the other hand firm 4 had the greatest number of differences between management and non management. The pragmatists’ assumption that “strong” unitary cultures are “good” culture was not therefore confirmed.
A daily reading of the journal and news letter clearly demonstrates that success in merging firm’s cultures is critical. In fact, many leader experts cite culture clashes as the primary cause of merger failures. Several recent mergers have suffered from culture clashes, for example Doing Co. and McDonnell Douglas. Also a study made by KPMG, on 2002, indicate that “83% of all mergers and acquisitions (M&As) failed to produce any benefit for the shareholders and over half actually destroyed value”. Interviews of over 100 senior executives involved in these 700 deals over a two-year period revealed that the overwhelming cause for failure “is the people and the cultural differences”. Difficulties encountered in M&As are amplified in cross-cultural situations, when the companies involved are from two or more different countries.
However there are also successes in some merger, for instance, being part of the 17% that succeeds, rather than the 83% that does not deliver, requires more than insight. For example Dime Bancorp and Anchor Bancorp merged to form the Dime Saving Bank of New York. Merger success is based on acceleration; concentration and creating a critical mass for operational change. Successes or failures depend on the methods used to merge culture. Culture audits, a strategic planning process, a communications program, and systematic procedures were all integral to the mergers successes or failures.
The success of still other visible mergers, or proposed mergers, will depend on whether disparate cultures can be properly meshed, for example, the meager of Daimler-Benz and the Chrysler Corporation has encountered significant difficulties base primarily on culture. Integration targets have come and gone. Unanticipated leadership changes have been made. The expected synergies have been delayed. Similarly, the effectiveness of Travelers Groups $9 billion takeover of Salomon Inc. is seen as depending on whether their vastly dissimilar cultures can be combined without hurting egos and alienating employees who will be critical to making the merger a success (Hoffman, 1997). The successes of the MCI-WorldCom merger will also depend upon whether cultural differences can be overcome (Schiesel, 1998).
This all suggests that cultures don’t fit, mergers may fail. It is because of the tremendous impotence of culture fit that cultural due diligence audits should be conducted before mergers, acquisitions, or alliances take place. On the other hand, perfect fit prior to meager may not always be feasible, in such cases, systematic efforts at culture reconciliation and change are absolutely necessary. Also significant changes in leadership, communication style which, combined with training, led to significant changes in job performance, quality and sensitivity to the external environment.
Moreover, Aspects of workplace relations and commitment: did not, which support to Gagliardis cited in Ogbonna 1992 that core values need not be affected by work place culture change. These results did not support the suggestion that best practice had been a means of increasing management control and work interest through self regulation.
After one year the beat practice culture changes programme, four of five firms experienced positive change in several common aspect of workplace culture like , communication, environment, planning, job, performance and leadership. However, the best practice programme did not affect aspect like, commitment, workplace relations, and job satisfaction. This suggests that while changes occurred in the behavioral aspect of culture they did not affect the deeper value aspects. To evaluate the outcome of the culture change program, an attitude survey was used to measure the change in attitude of employees, management and the organization culture.
The survey perceived change in workplace culture in the previous 12 month period for B&A dimensions leadership, structure, innovation, job performance, planning , communication, environment, workplace relationships, training, induction, commitment, job satisfaction, job autonomy Unionism and work intensity. The summary of the outcome shows that, the above program has effected each firm differently some firm has benefit more than other in certain category some have experienced negative change, overall four firms have benefited from the program. The program has no effect in some dimensions like structure, induction and commitment.
The results demonstrate that management has the ability to affect change through changing its own behavior and the formal practices of the firm. This suggested that merging culture of different firms with the same strategy by introducing similar program has different result on the culture change and on some cases it has no effect on changing the organization culture. However some dimensions show positive response to the program like job performance, planning, communication and environment, other dimensions like employee commitment to management goals, has not effected. We can conclude from the above that a leader can change the organisation culture and can succeed. But this success has different scores. The question is why there are different? We can see that this is because there variance in culture, behaviors of employees, management style, organisation structure, market situation and countries strategies.