DSpace at Khazar University

messy, complex and stressful. Routines - the old ways of doing things - often exert a
powerful influence. And even though may be intellectual agreement and understanding
of the need for, routine ways of behaving can predominate. This is probably because the
routines are embedded in an organizational structure that ports behavior in line with the
routines, and makes behavior inside the routines quite difficult. For example, the
functional structure, the power relationships, the way people relate and interact, and
control systems are congruent with the old routines, not the new ended strategy.
Frequently, there is overwhelming pressures to retain existing ways and to change
behavior in these circumstances will there probably require more than merely an
intellectual agreement. The structures and processes in which the old routines are
bedded must be changed as well. This would suggest that real change can only be
achieved through changes in cultural processes and that such changes will have to be
tackled on a broad front in which the many interlocking dimensions of culture -
structures, systems, symbols and so on - are addressed.
A further implication of this line of reasoning is that if implementation is
attempted through existing structures and processes it is possible that the culture will
absorb dilute and dissipate the intended strategy. Moreover, if the influence of the
culture in preserving old routines is pervasive, it is absolutely vital that the management
team trying to effect changes not only understand and agree with the strategy, but are
also highly committed to it themselves and firmly believe that change is essential.
As we explored in Chapter 1, there may be a relationship between the quality
of the content of a strategy and the quality of commitment to change the organization in
line with the intended strategy. It may well be desirable to trade off the content quality
of the strategy in order to improve the level of commitment to change.
Commitment is usually generated through involvement. If the members of the
executive team feel that the strategy is really theirs, that they own the strategy, then the
required changes, even though they may be painful and difficult, are much more likely
to be driven through. So it is vital that the process of strategy-making is one that
generates commitment to change: this suggests that the strategy must be decided by
those executives who will be responsible for its implementation. However, we noted in
the last chapter that the members of a management team may be constrained by a
paradigm. They may hold a set of beliefs and assumptions about, for example, their
79