A Cross-Sectional Study of Union Operator and Front-Line Supervisor Perception Of

Home , Adhocracy

A Cross-Sectional Study of Union Operator and Front-Line Supervisor Perception of

Culture and Leadership in a Northeast Petrochemical Refinery

David A Durbano

A dissertation to the faculty of Wilmington University in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Business Administration

Wilmington University

December 2018

A Cross-Sectional Study of Union Operator and Front-Line Supervisor Perception of

Culture and Leadership in a Northeast Petrochemical Refinery

David A Durbano

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration.

Signed ______

Amy Danley Ed.D, Chairperson of Dissertation Committee

Signed ______

Robert W. Rescigno Ed.D, Member of the Dissertation Committee

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... iii

List of Tables ...... vi

Dedication ...... ix

Acknowledgments...... x

Abstract ...... xi

Chapter

1 Introduction ...... 1

Background ...... 3

Importance...... 15

Description of the Problem ...... 18

Research Questions ...... 18

Hypotheses ...... 19

Definition of Terms ...... 20

Plan for Using Study Results ...... 21

Methodology ...... 22

Survey Design ………………………………………………………………………25

Possible Data Collection/Quality Problems…………………………………………30

Assumptions and Delimitations…………………………………………………..…31

2 Study Approach ...... 33

Scope of Study ...... 33

Reliability ...... 34

Analysis Plan for Research Question One and Two ...... 35

Analysis Plan for Research Question Three and Four ...... 36

Analysis Plan for Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ...... 37

Ethical and Human Subjects Consideration ...... 38

Demographical Review ...... 38

Cultural and Leadership Results ...... 47

Cultural Views and Demographic Factors ...... 54

Leadership Style and Demographic Factors ...... 66

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Data ...... 71

Summary of Findings ...... 74

3 Recommendations ...... 77

Recommendation One: Create a Sense of Urgency to Drive Expeditious Change ....77

Recommendation Two: Form a Guiding Coalition to Lead Change Efforts ...... 78

Recommendation Three: Create a Vision Statement to Communicate Preferred

Culture and Leadership……………………………………………………………..79

Recommendation Four: Formalize a Training Program for Leadership

Development………………………………………………………………………..80

Recommendation Five: Create a Mentorship/Coaching Program for Continued

Leader Cultivation ...... 81

Implementation Plan ...... 82

Future Areas of Research ...... 94

Conclusion ...... 95

References ...... 96

List of Appendices ...... 122

Appendix A: Survey Demographics……………………………………………….122

Appendix B: Survey Instrument Instructions…………………………………...... 123

Appendix C: Survey Cover Letter………………………………………………....124

Appendix D: OCAI Instrument Use Approval…………………………………….125

Appendix E: Graphical Representation of Preferred Culture….…………………..126

Appendix F: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Example..……………………127

Appendix G: MLQ Permission Use………………………………………………..128

Appendix H: Supervisor Culture Perspective Radar Chart………………………..129

Appendix I: Union Culture Perspective Radar Chart…………………………...…130

Appendix J: Supervisor Leadership Perspective Radar Chart………………….....131

Appendix K: Union Leadership Perspective Radar Chart………………………...132

vii

List of Tables

Table

1 Demographics ...... 39

2 Mean Value & SD: Age ...... 40

3 Mean Value & SD: Position ...... 42

4 Mean Value & SD: Education ...... 45

5 Supervisor Mean Scores & SD ...... 49

6 Operator Mean Scores & SD ...... 51

7 Operator Questions with Significant Differences ...... 56

8 Supervisor Questions with Significant Differences ...... 57

9 Combined Questions with Significant Differences...... 58

10 Supervisor One-Way Anova: Age ...... 60

11 Supervisor Tukey Test: Age ...... 60

12 Operator One-Way Anova: Age ...... 62

13 Operator Tukey Test: Age ...... 63

14 Supervisor T-Test: Education ...... 65

viii

15 Operator T-Test: Education ...... 66

16 Combined Leadership One-Way Anova: Age ...... 67

17 Combined Leadership Tukey Test: Age ...... 68

18 Operator Leadership One-Way Anova: Age...... 69

19 Operator Leadership Tukey Test: Age ...... 69

20 Union Operator Leadership T-Test: Education...... 70

21 Supervisor Leadership T-Test: Work Group ...... 71

22 Operator Leadership T-Test: Work Group ...... 71

23 MLQ Means & SD ...... 72

24 MLQ Self-Rating Percentiles ...... 73

Dedication

I dedicate this achievement to my parents, Vincent and Alice Durbano. Without their commitment and sacrifices while raising me, this would not have been possible.

Acknowledgements

I owe many people a “thank you” for their support throughout this journey including my classmates, friends, family, and dissertation committee.

Dr. Amy Danley, committee chair, embraced my idea to start the process earlier than usual as the research was time sensitive. Many e-mails, phone calls, and meetings helped drive me into producing work that I am truly proud of. Dr. Robert Rescigno, committee member, challenged me from the first class of the program. When I was ready to give up, he pulled me back and inspired me to keep going.

To my classmates, specifically Cheryl and Jonida. What an amazing journey, one that saw great friendships develop. Thank you for your support and guidance along the way.

To my Kacey and Trish, my best friends. We have spent many years together and overcame many things. You always motivated me to keep going even when life threw curveballs. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

To my children, Emily and Bryce. Aristotle said, “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet”. Thank you for your patience and support while I pursued this dream. I love you.

Abstract

Leadership and organizational culture are two variables that have received significant attention by researchers. Not only are they important from the apparent aspects, but they ultimately contribute to the core success of a business. Despite numerous studies that have focused on culture and leadership, a gap in knowledge exists within historical and current empirical literature that evaluates organizational culture within union environments and the associated leadership style(s) that accompany it. This quantitative cross-sectional research sought to identify current and preferred perceptions of organizational culture and leadership in a unionized Northeast United States petrochemical refinery. Specifically, this information was collected from union operators and their respective non-union supervisors. Findings from the study showed that the current organizational culture varied significantly from the preferred culture for both supervisors and union workers. Additionally, the same held true for workers perspectives on leadership. There were significant differences in perceptions based on age and education. Supportive recommendations to address the identified culture and leadership challenges include the formation of a guiding coalition to drive change efforts, improving requisite knowledge for leaders through formal training, and the implementation of mentors to provide continual leadership development.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of culture is critical for many reasons beyond those that exist at face value. Organizational culture can be defined as a “pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration… a product of joint learning” (Schein, 2010, p. 17). A 2014 study performed by the American Psychological Association estimated that more than $500 billion is purged from the U.S. economy due to 550 million lost workdays related to work stressors, such as poor organizational culture. The 550 million workdays lost does not account for those injured in workplace accidents in which sixty to eighty percent of these are attributed to stress (American Psychological Association, 2015). Also contributing to absenteeism and accidents is the cost of employee disengagement. Disengaged workers had 37% higher absenteeism, 49% more accidents, and 60% more errors while these organizations experienced lower productivity (18%), lower profitability (16%), lower job growth (37%), and a 65% percent lower share price (Pleiter, 2014). “There is a relation between the financial performance of a company and the culture… people in the effective culture would be working towards mutual success” (Graham, Harvey, Grennan, &

Rajgopal, 2015, p. 21).

Adding to the financial repercussions of a subpar culture is lack of loyalty and employee retention. Disengaged, dissatisfied, and stressed employees search for jobs,

2 decline promotions, or resign (APA, 2008). Financial estimates range from two to seven times the annualized income of the employee to complete the replacement process

(Herman, 1997) with more recent estimates of 16% for positions paying under $30,000 a year up to 213% to cover an executive position (Boushey & Glynn, 2012). A Hewitt

Associates (2009) study of over nine hundred organizations shows that employee engagement and organizational culture alignment have a synergistic effect, whereas organizational culture entropy (dysfunction) is found to have a strong inverse relationship with engagement. Evidenced by the empirical literature, it is imperative that the proper organizational culture is in place to drive down disengagement while improving productivity and profitability.

This study will focus on two groups within a Northeast United States petrochemical refinery: union operators and the front-line operations supervisors tasked with management and leadership responsibilities. As an overview, there are approximately 200 salaried supervisors, managers, directors, and executives within the organization that are tasked with leadership and management activities. Additionally, there is approximately 700 union personnel spread between varying workgroups such as lab workers, operations, and maintenance. These two groups will provide quantitative data through a survey instrument that aligns with their perception of the current and preferred organizational culture and leadership profiles. This research will provide union and company leadership with tangible data on current and preferred perceptions which

3 could lead toward driving down personnel challenges (safety, performance, absenteeism), improve interpersonal relationships, drive a culture that aligns with the organization’s mission statement, identify knowledge gaps, and support business sustainability

Background

Within the organization, observations and publicly shared documentation have contributed to the identification of potential culture challenges. As previously noted, lagging indicators for poor cultures include decreased profitability and an increase in injury rate. Comparison utilizing 10-K information against its peer group identified subpar financial performance. Additionally, an evaluation of safety data against its peer group confirmed higher injury rates as well. Not only were injury rates higher than regional competitors, but it was also consistently higher than the national industry average provided by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The externally documented challenges are supported by internal observations.

From the management perspective, a 25-year front-line supervisor provided a generalized statement that union operators are “lazy” and have “no work ethic”. From the union perspective, a 10-year operator believed that management is “out to get them” and that

“there is no trust”. Another 10-year operator believed that the idea of “us versus them

(union versus management) will never stop” (Anonymous, personal communication,

2017). These unconscious assumptions are problematic. Assumptions made by past experiences, education, or culture influences are dangerous as they guide individuals to

4 interpret the “behavior of others in a way that coincides with those expectations” (Schein,

2010, p. 29). While separate challenges exist in the perception of the issues, agreements also exist. A wedge that inhibits trust is found in the imbalance with the adherence to rules when compared to time constraints applied by higher levels of management. The perception then becomes that success is only found in profitability, and not in the safety of the workforce (Anonymous Union Operator and Supervisor, personal communication,

2017). Identification of industry best practices and safety issues are sometimes ignored in favor of cost-cutting and operational outcomes. However, if a worker is injured while cutting corners as directed by managers, the worker is ultimately at fault and disciplined.

The “knee-jerk” reaction to discipline, prior to full investigation, has created an openly discussed culture of incident non-reporting and lack of trust. Trust is a critical core organizational culture element that must be maintained (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, &

Mohammed, 2007).

Examining the historical and current influences on the organizational culture of this site lends support to the statement produced by Shuster and Kesler (1993) that mistrust, cost-cutting measures, and the union’s role of protecting jobs bolster the lack of cohesion between union and management. Though not all inclusive of historical challenges at this site, the business and union have faced multifaceted negative events. In

2009, union officials issued a formal warning that a strike was imminent if last-minute contract negotiations failed to produce a new contract (Seba, 2009). It must be noted that

5 the formation of organized labor and contract negotiations bring an environment of tension between union members and non-union management. The evidence is found in reports from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of businesses that have discriminated against workers while attempting to form, join, or use the services of a union even though these behaviors are protected under the National Labor Relations Act

(NLRB, n.d.). To prevent the formation of unions, companies can hire union-avoidance consultants, known as “union busting” in the represented population (UFCW, n.d.). Prior to 2016, the hiring of these groups was not required to be reported. The Labor

Department estimated that up to 87% of employers hired consultants to conduct union avoidance campaigns that went unreported (Jamieson, 2016). The slightest mention of the word union causes a shudder to occur within management (Buller, 1995).

Union groups, though certainly not ubiquitous, have engaged in behaviors that generate admonishment from management, including threats and violence. During previous contract negotiations at this site, union officials within the organization created public displays, including billboards on major roadways, which portrayed danger and destruction to the facility in the event of reduced manpower or a strike. While union violence has not occurred at this site, steps were taken by management to ensure a higher level of security and law enforcement presence as a contingency plan in the event of a strike due to fear of violent actions (Anonymous, personal communication, 2017).

“Strike violence is related to features of the sociopolitical context within which strikes

6 occur, the legislative environment, the skill mix of striking workers, and of great importance, the strategies utilized by striking workers” (Grant & Wallace, 1991, p. 1117).

Highly publicized events of union violence include a non-union worker that was shot and killed in 1993 after crossing the picket line in West Virginia (Sanders, 1993). A more recent event during 2011 involved 500 longshoremen in a dispute with a terminal owner in the state of Washington. The union members entered the terminal causing property and product damage (Carter & Bartley, 2011). Union members have also been at risk, such as Rod Carter who was beaten and stabbed in 1997 for continuing to work during a strike in Florida against the United Parcel Service (Tamen, 2001).

Coupled with management’s perception of violence, unions are perceived to pose financial threats to the business. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that “union workers receive larger wage increases than those of non-union workers and generally earn higher wages and have greater access to most of the common employer-sponsored benefits as well” (Long, 2013, p. 16). Wages and benefits agreed upon through collective bargaining agreements provide quantitative data that can be placed against business models to estimate costs. However, union rights create an environment in which strikes can occur, thus generating additional business expenses, hindering performance, and affecting the business name and goodwill. “Market advantage in collective bargaining has moved markedly in favour [sic] of the trade unions, and therefore, by implication, that workers generally win strikes” (Gennard, 1982, p. 247). It is not about winning or

7 losing a strike, but rather the holistic approach to financial prudence for both the business as well as union members through an understanding of organizational culture.

Current culture elements of the site being researched are based on observations, rules, values, and habits. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011), organizational culture defines the core values, assumptions, interpretations, and approaches that characterize an organization. These items fit within the three levels of culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts are the clearly identified words, sounds, and sights within the organization or group. This is perhaps the easiest piece to identify, but potentially difficult to decipher. Espoused beliefs are rooted in “someone’s original beliefs and values, his or her sense of what ought to be, as distinct from what is” (Schein, 2010, p. 25). Schein continues on to identify that these beliefs may differ from the actions witnessed in the artifacts level. The deepest dig rests in the third level of culture: basic underlying assumptions. Regardless of facts, testing, or quantitative data, the assumptions held eventually become a reality. When combined, these elements are akin to the structural formation of an iceberg (Schein, 1985).

Above the surface lies the artifacts, the overt and obvious traits of the organization. Though obvious, they can be difficult to understand and interpret without a deeper dig. Ideas such as vision and strategy, policies and procedures, and organizational goals fit into the artifact grouping (Rick, 2014). Under the water’s surface and out of view rest beliefs, perceptions, values, shared assumptions, traditions, feelings, and

8 unwritten rules. Take the examples previously provided of managers that are only “out to get” union members or the perception that union workers are “lazy”. These examples are not all-inclusive, as other opinions and beliefs may be kept to the individual and not shared with those outside the respective group. These basic assumptions, according to

Schein (2010), tend to be non-confrontable and nondebatable though other researchers suggest these perceptions of organizational culture are easy to address (LaGuardia, 2008).

Words and actions mirror the mental processes and reflect people’s differing cognitions and realities of the culture (Kabanoff & Daly, 2002).

Culture then is not a standalone element, but rather one that reaches to the core goal of the business: success. Studies from Caldwell (1994), Pascale and Athos (1981), and Martinez, Beaulieu, Gibbons, Wang, and Pronovost (2015) addressed how strong and aligned organizational cultures contribute to the success of organizations while those with shortcomings correlate to reduced success. Unionized work environments add another layer to organizational culture complexities (Beach & Kaboolian, 2005). The complexities are not new, as union/management conflict extends back to 1886 in which the Great Southwest Railroad strike occurred (Case, 2010). Union leaders recognize the negative role of the trade union culture and its high level of criticism for the introduction of change (Martinez-Inigo, Dauder, Crego, & Bilbao, 2012). This is attributed to the attitude, values, and goals of union leaders and members (Jenkins, 1977). The stance presented drives union members into a sense of linkage to the culture and ideas presented

9 by the union rather than the mission and vision of the company (Rousseau, 1998) that will continue to flow unless addressed.

These artifacts, espoused beliefs, and assumptions presented by the union are shared amongst group members and with new employees. The addition of new employees is what allows a culture to survive and continue since new employees learn to be silent and engaged in their assimilation through a process to learn the unspoken rules and preserve the culture (Kim & Oh, 2016). This method is akin to that of social control and manipulation into how to think and feel (Kunda, 1992). If based on factual data, then the “social control” does not contain negative connotations. However, if one relies on artifacts, espoused beliefs, and assumptions to continue an organizational culture, it presents a slippery slope for potentially misleading and false information to negatively impact all levels of culture and the business as a whole. Organizational culture “is so intangible and persistent that even the members of the organization cannot be relied upon to make the accurate description of it” (Dhingra & Punia, 2016, p. 138). Such difficulties have led to studies from a functionalist standpoint while others relied on an interpretive paradigm (Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015). Quantitative and qualitative assessments have provided frameworks not just to understand the culture, but also to evaluate methods for change, mold it into a force multiplier for productivity, and link it to individual personality and drive. Challenges exist in evaluating culture not just on an organizational level but also on a subculture (union) and microculture (union operators)

10 level. “Labor unions are utilitarian organizations utilizing exchange mechanism for delivering wages, benefits, job security and grievance resolutions through collective bargaining agreements (CBA)” (Swindell Jr., 2014, p. 14). Swindell suggested that their design is to be functional and efficient in accomplishing tasks. The National Labor

Relations Act established procedures for labor organization and collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is the act of negotiations between an employer and union to determine the conditions of employment (Cornell Law School, n.d.). An examination of the literature does not identify any terms within collective bargaining agreements that address how non-union leaders will follow the requirements, only that they will be followed, leaving implementation methods up to the individual leaders. An additional challenge is found in union-management relations that have grown more contentious and adversarial since the 1980s, thus placing tension in the workplace (Fossum, 2006).

Historical practice shows unions engaging in “antagonistic collective bargaining” while management focused on its own rights in protecting the organization and strategic planning (Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor, 2014). This tension damages the ability to develop covenantal relationships, and thus the preponderance of social exchange theory, or negotiated exchange between parties, in union environments (Twigg, Fuller, & Hester,

2007). The behaviors of those in leadership positions are imperative for evaluation as they influence organizational culture (Bass, 1998). Deal and Peterson (1999) supported

Bass (1998) in numerous case studies that identify how leadership shapes culture. In the

11 discussed organization, as previously noted, leadership methods have proved problematic as they are perceived to only focus on results while disregarding safety, procedure, and employee feedback.

The idea of leadership, though surging in recent years, can be first found in 2300

B.C.E in the Instructions of Ptahhotep (Fontaine, 1981) as well as in the works of

Confucius and Lao-tzu (Bass & Bass, 2008). Confucian leadership style was highly transformational in nature and encompassed morals and ethics, social criticality, and democratic dimensions (Bi, Ehrich, & Erich, 2012). This trend continues through the

Greek and Roman empires and into early modern periods. Weaver (1991) highlighted

John Locke’s writing in 1690 that leadership has to extend outside out institutions to ensure a proper society. In The Prince by Machiavelli and Wootton (1995), he stated that leaders should employ steadiness, firmness, and the ability to maintain authority, power, and order, with deceit and threats as a secondary option. In 2017, a search of Google

Scholar returned 3.99 million articles, books, studies, and references to leadership. This array of results requires that the ideology behind leadership in this research be clearly defined.

When examining leadership, many definitions, behaviors, and traits are acknowledged. Some scholars postulated that if a common definition could be identified, it would allow for a better understanding of the topic (Ciulla, 2002). In his compilation of leadership definitions, Joseph Rost presented 221 varying ways of identifying

12 leadership. While Rost’s definitions vary, they are ultimately similar to “Leadership is about one person (the leader) getting other people (the followers) to do something” (Kort,

2008, p. 409). This is supported by Industrial-Organizational Psychologist Dr. Gary Yukl

(2002) that postulates the essence of leadership is about influence. From a high-level perspective, the blanket definition provided by Kort and Yukl could fit the idea of leadership. It does not, however, identify the methodology and ethics used by leaders in getting other people to do things. This is a critical component, as task execution through coercion or other subpar “leadership” methods challenge organizational culture (Tsai,

2011).

How leaders get people to do things… and how what is to be done is decided…

have normative implications. So perhaps what Rost is really talking about is not

definitions, but theories about how people lead (or how people should lead) and

the relationship of leaders and those that are lead. His critique of particular

definitions is really a critique of the way they do or don’t describe the underlying

moral commitments of the leader-follower relationship. (Ciulla, 2002)

This notion presented by Ciulla (1998), as well as other scholars (Eagly, Karau, &

Makhijani, 1995; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Mumford, Campion, &

Morgeson, 2007) will be the basis for the evaluation of leadership moving forward.

Leadership behaviors may take many forms. Within the context of this research, transactional and transformational leadership behaviors will be the focus. Transactional

13 leaders style their behaviors on contingencies, such as rewards or punishments based upon performance and is “more readily found in the labor movement” (Clark, 2009, p.

170). This is management by exception, where a leader only interferes with the daily work of an employee following a mistake (Caldari, 2007). Bass (1990) identified that transactional leaders guide individuals to the role they need to fit. When expectations are met, no attention is required. In some situations, transactional leadership might allow for higher levels of motivation as it gives employees clear direction, punishment for shortcomings, and rewards for accomplished goals, ultimately aligning with hierarchal organizational culture (Deichmann & Stam, 2015).

As an alternative, Bernard Bass (1990) identified that transformational leaders, utilizing behaviors that align with clan culture, influence followers through increasing their awareness on tasks and issues, getting them to focus on the team rather than themselves, and activating their high-order needs. A product of Abraham Maslow

(Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), these needs belong to the esteem and self-actualization groupings. When high-order needs are activated, independence from and resistance to enculturation becomes available and drives down the need to associate with the surrounding negative culture (Venter, 2012). Leadership engagement through transformational behavior has been associated with both follower well-being and an increased level of performance (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Skakon,

Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, 2010; Bass, 1985). While this leadership style is promoted as

14 desirable, it puts a heavier demand on the skills of managers, thus requiring leaders to be grounded in idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011). Though research has identified that transformational leaders can be trained (Parry & Sinah, 2005), the environment

(organizational culture) influences how the training is transferred into practice

(Gollwitzer, 1999).

Leaders that continue to apply solely transactional leadership limit organizational culture. Evidence has been presented by Bass (1998), Kotter and Heskett (1992), and

Sheridan (1992) that strong organizational cultures are associated with transformational leadership methods. These leaders become role models that communicate vision, encourage employees, improve organizational commitment, and serve as instruments for organizational change (Sarros, Luca, Densten & Santora, 2014). The alternative rests on transactional leaders that follow the status-quo by following existing rules, procedures, and norms (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Many possible reasons exist for the transactional leadership path. The relationship between labor and management, historical practices

(mistrust/conflict), management’s desire to cut costs (increase revenue), and conflicts with the union’s role of protecting job security are influential factors (Schuster & Kesler,

1993). More troubling is that some companies, such as Mack Truck, have found that changing union culture to be too expensive or resource intense to justify the commitment.

The business found it to be more cost effective to relocate or off-shore in avoiding the

15 union. (Schuster & Kesler, 1993). What remains is a culture laden with tension,

“leadership” built on reprisals, and limited, if any, effort placed on identifying the current and desired state of organizational culture. Failing to address influential factors, such as leadership, worker perception, and personnel behaviors as they related to organizational culture ensures the inability to change it. The current perceived state of relations, culture, and associated negative attributes must be addressed to ensure future success.

Importance

Organizational culture is a broad term. Core values, assumptions, interpretations, and approaches, as defined by Cameron and Quinn (2011), provide one definition. Edgar

Schein (2010) defined it as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration… a product of joint learning” (p. 18). Meyer and Topolnytsky (2000) stated:

Although often invisible (cultural inputs), they might rise above the surface in

discussion about what the organization is all about or where it is going. Indeed,

values might become quite explicit as corporate executives attempt to develop and

articulate the organization’s mission and vision. (p. 9-2)

Mission is what the company does while vision is what the company aspires to be. These statements communicate the who, what, and why to employees, competitors, customers, and the public. In addition, the mission statement must reflect the value, beliefs, and philosophy of operations of the organization and reflect the organizational culture

(Goodstein & Nolan, 1992) while ensuring maximum employee buy-in (Williams, 2008).

The words of Goodstein and Nolan (1992) as well as Williams (2008) are compounded by a 2015 North American study that found 61% of employees do not know their company’s mission while 57% of those that do are not motivated by it (Achievers, 2015).

In the event that the mission statement is identified and known throughout the workforce, it does not guarantee success. “Consensus on the core mission… does not automatically guarantee that the key members of the organization will have common goals or that the various subcultures will be appropriately aligned to fulfill the mission” (Schein, 2010, p.

78). These mission statements can lack the needed drama, contain too much melodrama, and are abstract with no relation to day-to-day roles and responsibilities (LaGuardia,

2008). Mission and vision, whether known or unknown to the population, cannot be relied on to shape nor define the culture of an organization. It is a misconception that employees will self-align with the mission and vision of the organization. Leadership methods must drive employee commitment to the mission and vision, ultimately influencing organizational culture (Jaskyte, 2004).

Negative organizational cultures present a challenge to the mission, vision, and sustainability of refining, as well as other businesses. Companies tend to view sustainability through cost reduction, managing environmental pollutions, improving community and stakeholder relations, and modifying policies and procedures (Crane,

2000). Other scholars (Hart & Milstein, 1999; Senge & Carstedt, 2001) reported that

17 these changes are simply superficial and do not support the formation of sustainable organizations. To accomplish sustainability, the same organizations engaging in

“superficial” changes must embark on organizational culture transformation and change

(Post & Altman, 1994; Stead & Stead, 1992; Welford, 1995).

The postulation is that sustainability-oriented organizational cultures drive corporate sustainability. When sustainability initiatives fail, organizational culture is often cited as the primary reason (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). Even in poor organizational cultures, first-order changes, such as amendments to report creation or modifying existing processes, are easier to accommodate as it relies on ways to improve what the organization already does (Lorenzi & Riley, 2000). These changes “endorse the utility of interpretive schemata already in place… while second-order changes seek to change the schemata themselves” (Bartunek & Moch, 1987, p. 486). Second order changes, such as those that come through the improvement of organizational culture, bring modification through a change in “rules governing their structure or internal order”

(Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 2011, p. 13). Second order changes are challenging as they are complex, outside of existing paradigms, and a total disturbance to the system

(Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Changes are second order “when it is not obvious how it will make things better for people with similar interests, it requires individuals or groups of stakeholders to learn new approaches, or it conflicts with prevailing values and norms” (Waters et al., 2003, p. 7). Those with low psychological ownership and adamant

18 opposition to culture change (second order change) can bring a “technically best system to its knees” (Lorenzi & Riley, 2000, p. 116). Without effective leadership, second-order changes will be unsuccessful. Some of the established traits for second-order change leaders include flexibility, the ability to challenge the status quo, intellectual stimulation and inspiration, and aligning closely with the characteristics found in transformational leaders (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2001).

Description of the Problem

A gap in knowledge exists within historical and current empirical literature that evaluates organizational culture within union environments and the associated leadership style(s) that accompany it. This knowledge gap extends to the business at the focus of this research. Identification of organizational culture has not been undertaken, nor have leadership methods. It is unknown as to why the exploration has not occurred, be it time, ability, or other constraints. Culture and leadership are critical business elements, and given the nature of the previously identified tensions, management/union interactions, and challenged business performance, should be explored.

Research Questions

There are four research questions to be addressed:

1. What is the current and preferred culture for union operators and front-line

supervisors?

2. What is the current and preferred leadership style for union operators and

front-line supervisors?

3. What is the relationship between current and preferred culture views and

demographic factors?

4. What is the relationship between current and preferred leadership style and

demographic factors?

Hypotheses

What is the current and preferred culture for union operators and front-line supervisors?

H1: Among the clan, hierarchy, market, and adhocracy types, the preferred culture for union operators and front-line supervisors will be the clan culture.

What is the current and preferred leadership style for union operators and front- line supervisors?

H2: Among the clan, hierarchy, market, and adhocracy types, the preferred leadership style for union operators and front-line supervisors will be clan leadership.

What is the relationship between current and preferred culture views and demographic factors?

H3: There will be a statistically significant difference in current culture as well as preferred culture when grouped by the age demographic.

H3a: There will be a statistically significant difference in current culture as well as preferred culture when grouped by the education demographic.

H3b: There will be a statistically significant difference in current culture as well as preferred culture when grouped by the workgroup demographic.

What is the relationship between current and preferred leadership style and demographic factors?

H4: There will be a statistically significant difference in current leadership style as well as preferred leadership style when grouped by the age demographic.

H4a: There will be a statistically significant difference in current leadership style as well as preferred leadership style when grouped by the education demographic.

H4b: There will be a statistically significant difference in current leadership style as well as preferred leadership style when grouped by the workgroup demographic.

Definition of Terms

For the reader to fully understand terms used in this paper, the following definitions are provided.

• Adhocracy Culture: The work environment is dynamic and creative with leaders

that are viewed as innovators and risk takers. Long-term growth and creation of

new resources are emphasized while the organization promotes individual

initiative and freedom.

• Clan Culture: Clan cultures provide a friendly working environment with an

associated sense of family. The emphasis is on interpersonal relationships,

teamwork, and participation. Clan cultures are also consistent with leadership

styles that rely on facilitation, mentorship, and team building.

• Front-Line Supervisors: Individuals within the Northeast petrochemical facility

that are tasked with providing supervision, guidance, and leadership to union

operators.

• Hierarchy Culture: This culture creates a formalized and structured work

environment. Procedures determine what people do while leaders focus on

efficiency and smooth running operations. Leadership tendencies focus on

timeliness, efficiency, and consistency that support long-term goals of stability

and results.

• Market Culture: Market cultures focus on goals and results with competition as its

driver. Leadership is tough with high expectations for winning in the market.

Success relies on reputation, market penetration, and stock performance.

• Union Operators: Individuals within the Northeast petrochemical facility that are

tasked with control of equipment, monitoring process conditions, and executing

work tasks under the direction of front-line supervisors.

Plan for Using Study Results

This study provides organizational culture and leadership views for both union operators and salaried front-line supervisors. The survey provides a platform for employees to provide honest feedback in an anonymous manner. Going forward, results can be applied to modify training methods and topics, leadership, and supervisory behaviors, as well as the potential ability to positively impact contract issues, arbitration, and negotiations. Additionally, it can provide insight into union environments, where there are knowledge gaps in culture and leadership identification.

Methodology

This research focuses on perceived culture types within a Northeast petrochemical refinery. It will utilize two instruments, the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

(OCAI) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). First, the OCAI is a quantitative, ipsative instrument that has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable

(Lavine, Cameron, & Brumback, 2008; Rhee & Moon, 2009; Ralston, Terpstra-Tong,

Terpstra, Wang, & Egri, 2006). Supporting the instrument is the competing values framework on which the instrument is based has also been found to be valid (Zammuto &

Krakower, 1991; Kwam & Walker, 2004; Rhee & Moon, 2009). This instrument will be applied in a quantitative cross-sectional analysis. Cross-section refers to the respondents in that it only uses a sample of the target population (O’Leary, 2014). The cross-sectional analysis is one of the most common and well-known methods to capture specific information about an entire population through a sample (Peck, Olsen, & Devore, 2001).

Also known as a prevalence study, the measurements collected through the instrument are linked to a specific point in time. “Cross-sectional designs have three distinctive features: no time dimension; reliance on existing differences rather than change following intervention; and groups based on existing differences” (de Vaus, 2001, p. 170). de Vaus said:

Cross-sectional designs are probably the most widely used designs in social

research. One reason for this popularity is that they enable the researcher to obtain

results relatively quickly. Since data are collected at one point of time, there is no

need to wait for various follow-up stages or interventions before analyzing the

data… If we simply want to describe the characteristics of a population, their

attitudes… then the cross-sectional survey is a most satisfactory way of obtaining

this descriptive analysis. (p. 176)

Mann (2003) stated that cross-sectional studies are the “best way to determine prevalence and are useful at identifying associations” (p. 57). One disadvantage of using this method is that cross-sectional studies do not provide an explanation for their findings (Mann,

2003). This research study does not look to identify the reasons why, but rather capture the data for identification of statistically significant differences in current and preferred culture and leadership based on the varying demographics. As desired, further research to identify explanations can be conducted through a cohort study or randomized controlled study (Christiansen & Chanan, 2017).

Distribution of the OCAI survey will be handled with dual methods. First, the union operators will be randomly selected based on shift and work location within the facility. Each operating area and associated shift will be assigned a label and an associated numeric value. A random number generator will be utilized to select the sample population. There are approximately ninety operators per shift dispersed among thirteen operating areas. Surveys will be administered on weekends when the workload is lower and operator availability should be higher. The administration will be done by the researcher without on-site support from union leadership or other front-line supervisors. Surveys will be hand-delivered to the randomly selected operating areas.

This is an effort to reduce potential bias. There is an approximate total of 389 union operators. Second, due to ease of access, all shifts of front-line supervisors

(approximately 50) will be selected following their daily meeting. As with the sampling of union employees, the administration of the instrument to front-line supervisors will be hand delivered by the researcher. Based on overtime coverage, vacation, and illness, it may not be possible to secure the entire population.

With the OCAI covering the leadership perception of others, self-evaluation of front-line leaders will be executed through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ). The MLQ, form 5X-Short, works through assessment of the full-range leadership theory (FRLT) proposed by Avolio and Bass (1991). Within this theory exist five transformational leadership factors, three transactional leadership factors, and one non-

25 transactional laissez-faire leadership factor. It is the most widely used instrument to assess transformational leadership theory (Kirkbride, 2006) and “is considered the best-validated measure of transformational and transactional leadership” (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338). Data from all front-line supervisors will be gathered at the same time as OCAI completion, thus creating a connection between the two surveys for further evaluation as desired.

Survey Design

Cameron and Quinn (2011) developed the Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument (OCAI) to measure culture and values by way of the Competing Values

Framework (van Eijnatten, van der Ark, & Holloway, 2015). The Competing Values

Framework examines organizational focus (internal versus external) and level of flexibility

(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Through assessment of six organizational dimensions, the survey will provide leaders with the characteristics of the organization, their values, and how they operate. The six elements include:

• Dominant Characteristics:

o Personal place, entrepreneurial, results-oriented, control/structure

• Organizational Leadership:

o Mentoring/nurturing, risk-taking, no-nonsense, efficiency

• Management of Employees:

o Teamwork, individual risk-taking, competitiveness, conformity/stability

• Organizational Glue:

o Loyalty/trust, innovation, goal achievement, formal rules, and policies

• Strategic Emphases:

o Human development, creating new challenges, competition, smooth

operations

• Criteria of Success:

o Employee commitment, product leader, winning in the marketplace, low-

cost production, and efficient delivery

The research participant is provided with six questions (referencing the above elements) that contain four responses that correspond to “current” culture. Participants must assign a total of one hundred points between the four responses, each response aligning to a specific culture style (clan, adhocracy, market, hierarchy). The values assigned correspond to current organizational culture composition, identified in the sub-bullets below each dominant characteristic. Additionally, the respondent must assign points to the four responses for a “preferred” culture. This process continues for all six questions.

Participant responses will be disaggregated by demographic information. Demographic selections include workgroup (union/supervision), age, and the highest level of education.

The gender demographic was excluded, as greater than 90% of union operators and front- line supervisors are male.

More than 70 instruments exist to measure organizational culture, with the focus of most instruments on a specific modality or identifying the overarching culture (Jung et

27 al., 2009). A strong argument for the use of the instrument in this study relies on other scholarly research. Van Eijnatten, et al. (2015) identified the Competing Values

Framework as one of the most important frameworks in the history of business. Yu and

Wu (2009) stated the CVF as having “few dimensions, but broad implications… empirically validated in cross-cultural research… and most succinct” (p. 40). As the goal of this research is to identify overarching culture, instruments focusing on specific modalities were eliminated, including those that required individual interviews. In addition to capturing culture view, it also captures the organizational dimension of leadership. None of the instruments reviewed provide both the culture and leadership dimensions without the administration of a second survey.

In addition, four other dimensions are captured which may provide insight into the culture and leadership activities without having to resurvey the population.

Removing interview based instruments was multifaceted. First, although anonymity is guaranteed to participants in this research, response bias is a possibility as the interviewee withholds information in an effort to protect themselves from future repercussions.

Written instruments provide an additional layer of anonymity since “the less knowledge one has about the source, the harder it is to specify who the source is among possible options” (Whelan, 2007, p. 2). Additionally, qualitative interviews seek to cover the underlying story behind participant responses (O’Leary, 2014) that is excluded from this study. Next, the OCAI expands beyond dimensional approaches and utilizes a

28 typological approach. This allows for organizational culture to be categorized by predefined types (Ashkanasy, Broadfood, & Falkus, 2000). The predefined culture types for the OCAI include clan, market, adhocracy, and adhocracy, and are defined on pages twelve and thirteen. These cultures are not unique to Cameron and Quinn (2011) and their Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, but were originally identified by the following scholars: Hierarchy (Weber, 1947), market (Williamson, 1975), clan (Ouchi,

1981; Pascale & Athos, 1981), and adhocracy (Bennis, 1968). In addition to the OCAI measuring the needed dimensions, culture types, and ensuring anonymity, it was also selected for its ability to be executed within the organization of study. With the OCAI serving as the best fit for this research study, permission to use the study was requested and can be found in Appendix D.

The next instrument used, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, is designed to be a self-evaluation tool that gauges the level of transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire in use by individuals, in this case, front-line supervisors. The following scales are defined by Rowold (2005):

Transactional

• Contingent reward – Focus on clearly defined tasks, while providing material or

psychological fulfillment for completion.

• Active management by exception – The leader actively watches and searches for

deviations from rules and standards, taking corrective action.

• Passive management by exception – The leader intervenes only after errors have

occurred

Transformational

• Inspirational Motivation – The articulation and representation of vision by a

leader, supported by a positive attitude.

• Idealized Influence (attributed) – The attribution of charisma to the leader, with

close emotional ties between leader and follower.

• Idealized Influence (behavior) – Collective sense of mission and action upon

these values.

• Intellectual Stimulation – Challenging the assumptions of followers’ beliefs, their

analysis, and the solutions generated.

• Individualized Consideration – Consideration of the followers’ individual needs

and the development of their strengths.

Laissez-Faire

• Defined by the absence of leadership, and is generally used as a non-leadership

contrast when discussing transformational and transactional leadership styles.

Performing a self-assessment provides additional information that can be used in conjunction with the OCAI results. As an example, if the current views presented by union operators identify a hierarchical culture/leadership style, MLQ results that indicate a higher level of transactional leadership thus lends support to the OCAI results.

Utilizing only OCAI results can present challenges as ratings provided by others should not be the only metric used in identifying “true scores” (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997).

Additionally, self-rating alone should not be considered accurate as leniency bias can be problematic (Halverson, Tonidandel, Barlow, & Dipboye, 2005). Self-other rating agreement (SOA) is the degree of agreement between a leader’s self-rating when compared to the rating assigned by superiors, peers, and subordinates (Atwater, Wang,

Smither, & Fleenor, 2009). The SOA is of importance as “it is posited to be an indicator of self-awareness and it appears to be related to several outcomes of interest, including leader effectiveness and derailment” (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010, p. 1005). A sample of the survey can be found in Appendix F, while permission to use the instrument is found in Appendix G. Using both instruments in conjunction will provide more evidence in support of properly identifying culture and leadership trends within the organization.

Possible Data Collection/Quality Problems

Common culture assessment methodologies include Likert scales, Q-methodology, and ipsative measures (Jung et al., 2009). Ipsative measurements, such as the OCAI, have been found valid and reliable in studies encompassing varying industries, occupations, and across multiple countries that include petrochemical facilities. Utilizing ipsative data presents some challenges. Reliability values (Cronbach’s alpha) have been found by

Knapp (1964), Sweet (1989), and Hammond & Barrett (1996) to be consistently lower than

31 normative data. Adding to this challenge are the results of the pilot study that involved eleven front-line supervisors. For the respective cultures, the following alphas were calculated: adhocracy culture (.446), hierarchy (.571), clan (.748), and market (.702). Scale if item deleted showed alphas of: culture (.648), hierarchy (.631), clan (.8), and market

(.787). With empirical research identifying lower alphas for ipsative research as well as low alphas for the pilot study, contact was made with the instrument author (Dr. Kim

Cameron) as well as the organization that administers the instrument on behalf of the author.

Feedback from the administering organization identified that the number of participants in the pilot may have influenced the low alphas. Consistent alphas above .7 were found when the number of participants was fifty and above (M. Bremer, personal communication, July 10, 2017). In further personal communication with the instrument author, he confirmed that the low number of participants can influence alpha coefficients

(K. Cameron, personal communication, July 10, 2017). Based upon personal communications and empirical research, it is believed that the full study will provide alphas above .7 for each respective culture as the number of participants will meet the recommended threshold.

Assumptions and Delimitations

Leedy and Ormrod (2010) stated, “Assumptions are so basic that, without them, the research problem itself could not exist” (p. 44). Assumptions are features of the

32 research that are considered true although they have not been substantiated. The following disclosures are the identified assumptions within this study. The first assumption is that both union and non-union employees answered truthfully. The second assumption is that the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) and

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) are accurate instruments in evaluating organizational culture/leadership and has received content validity confirmation by a director of functional development, the instrument author, and a human resources specialist. The final assumption is that the sample population is representative of the total population.

The total population of the petrochemical facility being studied includes workforce groups other than front-line supervisors and union operations. This includes management, senior leadership, maintenance workers, administrative personnel, and many others. Creating a delimitation that avoids these additional workgroups allows for the focus to be placed, as seen in the study approach, on unionized operators and salaried supervisors.

CHAPTER 2

STUDY APPROACH

This study is designed to gather data from unionized operators and salaried supervisors within a petrochemical refinery to quantify their current perceptions of organizational culture and leadership as well as preferred organizational culture and leadership style. These styles align with the clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy styles stemming from the Competing Values Framework model. The focus is to identify culture/leadership views and to identify possible relationships between the union members and salaried supervisors. These relationships will be based on specific moderators, including the demographics of age, education level, and employee status

(union/front-line supervisor).

Participation in the study will be voluntary, and this will be communicated to all participants. The estimated time to complete the OCAI survey will be 10 minutes. Any information in regard to the responses will remain confidential, however, the quantitative analysis will be shared with company leaders and will also be available to participants at their request.

Scope of Study

Due to logistical and time constraints, the ability to collect data from all union operators will not be possible. To address this, a purposeful sample of the population of approximately 25% will be captured. This same percentage (25) will also be used for

34 management personnel by sampling only the front-line supervisors as opposed to superintendents, directors, and executives. The union sample population, as well as front-line supervision, will be presented with an in-person survey packet that includes a request for demographic information (Appendix A), the survey and instructions

(Appendix B), and a survey cover letter (Appendix C). The gender demographic was eliminated, as greater than 90% of operators is male. If the female gender were included as a demographic, the sample size might not accurately reflect inputs from varying genders.

Collection of the MLQ 5X-Short data will be performed at the same time as the

OCAI. All front-line supervisors will be presented a paper copy for completion

(Appendix F).

Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha will be identified for the “now” perception rather than

“preferred”. It is critical that “now” is used, rather than preferred. Preferred is an opinionated belief for how an individual wants the situation (organizational culture/leadership) to be. High opinion variation can impact Cronbach’s Alpha values, as outliers can lower the value to below the .7 threshold. Walker and Avant (2010) identified that specific factors influence perception. The defining attributes include:

• Sensory awareness or cognition of the experience

• Personal experience

• Comprehension that can lead to a response (E.g. survey completion)

Perception “is a unique way of understanding phenomena by interpreting sensory information based on experience, processing information, and forming mental models”

(McDonald, 2012, p. 9). In this research study, the above definition and guidelines align with “now” perceptions rather than “preferred” opinions, thus providing greater accuracy for Cronbach’s Alpha values.

Confirming Cronbach’s alpha (α) values was done by utilizing each piece of the six questions that aligned with the specific culture type. For instance, questions 1A-6A of the OCAI align with the clan culture, while questions 1B-6B align with the adhocracy culture. The α coefficients were identified as follows: clan (.7), adhocracy (.69), hierarchy (.75), and market (.63).

Reliability confirmation for the MLQ is available through Gasper (1992),

Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio (2002), Degroot, Kiker, and Cross (2000), as well as

Muenjohn and Armstrong (2008). Muenjohn and Armstrong (2008) found provided reliability values of .86 for the 9-factor model of the MLQ 5X-Short. Bagheri, Sohrabi, and Moradi (2015) provided an alpha value of .90.

Analysis Plan for Research Question One and Question Two

What is the current and preferred culture for union operators and front-line supervisors?

What is the current and preferred leadership style for union operators and front- line supervisors?

Descriptive statistics will be generated to capture mean scores. Using the

Competing Values Framework axis and quadrants, graphical representation will present the mean scores for “now” with an overlay of “preferred” for each of the six questions and their four cultures. The graphical representation for each dimension will be placed on a radar chart (Appendix E). Also, a mean score will be generated across all questions, thus providing the overarching culture and leadership desire. Preference based upon dimension (leadership, strategic emphasis, organizational glue, etc.) may vary, thus the need to plot both question mean and total mean.

Analysis Plan for Research Question Three and Question Four

What is the relationship between current and preferred culture views and demographic factors?

What is the relationship between current and preferred leadership style and demographic factors?

The OCAI (Appendix B) will be printed and presented to the randomly selected union population and all available front-line supervisors. The analysis plan consists of two stages.

First, paired T-tests will be conducted. T-tests will be run on 24 sets of data.

These sets come from the six questions and their four associated responses that align with

37 the four culture/leadership types being evaluated. The paired t-test will compare “now” versus “preferred” responses to identify any statistically significant differences within the independent work groups, as well as when tested against each other (union versus front- line supervisor). The threshold for statistical significance will be a p-value of less than or equal to .05.

The second test will consist of performing a one-way ANOVA to examine organizational culture/leadership differences by level of education and age group.

Statistical analysis will be performed separately for union and front-line supervisors.

Additionally, both work groups will be combined. Based on the data collected, either

Tukey’s or a Scheffe post hoc test will be conducted to identify significant differences from performing the one-way ANOVA.

Analysis Plan for Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The analysis of the MLQ does not require statistical testing, but rather basic mathematical operations to categorize leaders and their associated styles. The instrument consists of 45 questions, with values of zero through four. Each value corresponds to a frequency that a leadership style behavior is executed, with zero being “not at all” and four being “frequently, if not always”. The remaining values are: one (once in a while), two (sometimes), and three (fairly often). To score the instrument, the scores for the responses that align with the specific behavior, such as idealized influence or management by exception, are added and divided by the total number of responses for

38 that item, providing an average value. Avolio and Bass (2004) suggested that leaders are not to be labeled as transactional or transformational, but rather evaluated on how frequently they engage in these leadership behaviors. The total mean value of all participants will be identified and compared to results from the OCAI. Additionally,

Avolio and Bass (2004) provided mean scores for individuals across the United States

(N=27,285) for further comparison, if desired.

Ethical and Human Subjects Consideration

At the core of the research is the ethical principle to do only good and to do no harm (Hugman, Pittaway, & Bartolomei, 2011). To meet the requirements, this research requires that informed consent is obtained, the risk to participants is minimized, confidentiality and anonymity are protected, the study is devoid of deception, and that participants have the right to refuse to participate and the right to withdraw during the survey. It is believed that sampling methods, information provided in the questionnaire, and the scope of remaining activities do not violate any ethical standard and have taken human subjects considerations into account.

Demographical Review

The personal demographics of participating respondents is shown in Table 1. Of the total respondents (n=156), 44 were front-line supervisors (28.2%). The remaining

112 respondents (71.8%) were union operators. These values meet the 25% collection threshold of the total managerial population, as well as union operator population,

39 previously identified within the study scope. The remaining demographic factors collected include age range and highest education completed. The respondent age range was grouped into three categories. Forty-five respondents (28.8%) were between the ages of 18 and 34, seventy-five respondents (48.1%) were between the ages of 35 and 54, and 36 respondents (23.1%) were aged 55 and older. Finally, education level was also grouped into three categories. Those who completed high school amounted to 91 respondents (58.3%). Completion of an undergraduate degree was selected by 36 respondents (40.4%). The remaining two respondents (1.3%) had completed a graduate degree.

Table 1 Demographics

Table 2, 3, and 4 present the mean values and standard deviations of each question when grouped be age (Table 2), position (Table 3), and education (Table 4).

Table 2

Mean Value & SD: Age 18-34 35-54 55 and above Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Deviation Deviation Deviation 1A Now 25.0 11.0 20.0 13.0 18.0 13.0 1A Pref 36.6 20.6 26.6 13.4 31.7 23.8 1B Now 11.0 9.0 11.0 9.0 10.0 7.0 1B Pref 10.7 11.3 15.8 15.0 14.7 9.6 1C Now 33.0 22.0 31.0 17.0 33.0 20.0 1C Pref 20.5 18.1 27.5 17.5 25.4 18.4 1D Now 31.0 18.0 37.0 18.0 39.0 24.0 1D Pref 32.0 20.0 30.0 19.0 28.0 19.0 2A Now 19.6 10.5 14.2 9.0 13.4 13.7 2A Pref 23.0 13.0 25.0 13.0 34.0 16.0 2B Now 14.1 10.3 15.1 11.8 18.6 21.7 2B Pref 17.2 12.7 16.5 14.3 16.0 10.9 2C Now 31.0 14.0 46.6 25.4 42.9 30.7 2C Pref 19.0 10.6 19.5 13.9 14.9 10.5 2D Now 35.0 14.0 24.0 19.0 25.0 24.0 2D Pref 41.0 27.0 39.0 18.0 35.0 20.0 3A Now 22.9 17.7 22.2 14.9 27.7 18.4 3A Pref 30.6 19.7 40.5 20.9 38.5 18.2 3B Now 13.9 12.8 14.1 11.0 14.1 14.4

3B Pref 15.2 12.5 15.9 14.0 12.7 9.1 3C Now 24.0 14.8 31.5 21.9 24.8 18.2 3C Pref 19.4 10.1 18.9 13.4 14.9 12.8 3D Now 39.0 26.0 32.0 21.0 34.0 29.0 3D Pref 35.0 25.0 25.0 16.0 34.0 25.0 4A Now 12.0 11.5 13.2 12.4 13.6 11.7 4A Pref 22.6 12.9 35.5 19.3 38.3 21.0 4B Now 18.8 13.2 12.5 10.5 14.2 11.3 4B Pref 27.7 23.0 19.4 8.2 20.9 12.3 4C Now 25.3 19.6 27.2 16.5 22.2 25.0 4C Pref 17.4 11.5 17.9 11.1 14.6 9.2 4D Now 44.0 22.0 47.0 23.0 50.0 7.0 4D Pref 32.3 19.6 27.2 17.5 26.3 13.5 5A Now 15.7 10.0 11.4 10.4 10.8 9.3 5A Pref 31.0 22.0 26.0 17.0 28.0 11.0 5B Now 20.0 12.4 14.2 10.6 17.9 12.9 5B Pref 17.0 11.0 20.0 10.0 23.0 8.0 5C Now 31.0 14.0 43.0 22.0 35.0 25.0 5C Pref 22.4 11.8 20.7 12.6 20.9 7.4 5D Now 33.0 15.8 31.7 17.3 36.3 25.2 5D Pref 30.0 19.0 34.0 18.0 26.0 10.0 6A Now 16.9 12.9 14.1 12.9 15.9 11.3 6A Pref 24.7 11.9 31.7 18.8 31.2 21.3 6B Now 13.2 11.4 7.7 9.1 6.1 9.0

6B Pref 19.8 13.6 13.3 7.9 14.4 10.9 6C Now 34.9 17.9 36.1 22.2 21.9 18.8 6C Pref 30.4 21.9 25.8 14.3 17.3 12.3 6D Now 34.0 15.0 42.0 24.0 56.0 25.0 6D Pref 25.0 14.0 29.0 15.0 37.0 25.0

Table 3

Mean Value & SD: Position Supervisor Operator

Mean Standard Mean Standard Deviation Deviation 1A Now 21.0 10.0 21.0 13.0

1A Pref 31.1 20.0 30.5 18.4

1B Now 13.0 8.0 10.0 9.0

1B Pref 14.0 13.1 14.1 13.0

1C Now 34.0 17.0 32.0 20.0

1C Pref 26.5 17.9 24.4 18.1

1D Now 32.0 16.0 37.0 21.0

1D Pref 28.0 18.0 31.0 20.0

2A Now 16.7 11.6 15.1 10.7

2A Pref 26.0 15.0 26.0 14.0

2B Now 18.9 15.6 14.3 13.7

2B Pref 16.8 10.7 16.5 13.9

2C Now 37.7 22.6 42.6 25.7

2C Pref 19.0 11.9 18.0 12.5

2D Now 27.0 19.0 28.0 20.0

2D Pref 38.0 22.0 39.0 21.0

3A Now 25.5 17.9 23.0 16.1

3A Pref 35.0 19.9 38.0 20.5

3B Now 13.6 10.5 14.3 12.9

3B Pref 16.3 12.2 14.4 12.8

3C Now 25.9 18.0 28.5 20.0

3C Pref 18.9 11.9 17.8 12.7

3D Now 35.0 23.0 34.0 25.0

3D Pref 30.0 21.0 30.0 22.0

4A Now 15.1 12.9 12.2 11.5

4A Pref 30.6 18.2 33.1 19.5

4B Now 15.9 10.0 14.3 12.4

4B Pref 23.0 14.5 21.8 15.5

4C Now 24.7 16.3 25.8 20.8

4C Pref 18.1 10.2 16.6 11.1

4D Now 44.0 21.0 48.0 25.0

4D Pref 28.4 15.9 28.5 18.1

5A Now 14.2 11.2 11.8 9.8

5A Pref 28.0 16.0 27.0 18.0

5B Now 18.0 10.7 16.2 12.4

5B Pref 21.0 10.0 20.0 10.0

5C Now 39.0 21.0 37.0 21.0

5C Pref 21.3 11.2 21.2 11.4

5D Now 29.2 15.1 34.6 20.1

5D Pref 30.0 14.0 31.0 18.0

6A Now 17.1 12.3 14.6 12.6

6A Pref 28.5 17.7 29.9 18.1

6B Now 9.2 9.5 8.8 10.4

6B Pref 15.5 11.5 15.4 10.6

6C Now 30.7 18.9 33.1 21.8

6C Pref 26.6 17.6 24.6 16.8

6D Now 42.0 24.0 43.0 23.0

6D Pref 29.0 17.0 30.0 18.0

Table 4 Mean Value & SD: Education High School Undergraduate Graduate Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard Deviation Deviation Deviation 1A Now 21.0 13.0 22.0 12.0 10.0 0.0 1A Pref 32.8 20.9 27.0 14.7 50.0 0.0 1B Now 12.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 1B Pref 16.9 13.2 10.4 11.8 0.0 0.0 1C Now 30.0 19.0 35.0 18.0 40.0 0.0 1C Pref 20.5 17.5 30.7 16.8 50.0 0.0 1D Now 37.0 20.0 34.0 19.0 40.0 0.0 1D Pref 30.0 19.0 32.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 2A Now 15.7 11.6 15.5 10.1 10.0 0.0 2A Pref 27.0 14.0 27.0 15.0 10.0 0.0 2B Now 17.2 15.5 13.5 12.5 10.0 0.0 2B Pref 17.8 12.6 15.0 13.7 10.0 0.0 2C Now 36.9 23.9 46.3 25.0 80.0 0.0 2C Pref 19.2 11.2 17.5 13.6 0.0 0.0 2D Now 30.0 19.0 25.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 2D Pref 36.0 21.0 41.0 21.0 80.0 0.0 3A Now 24.0 17.1 23.9 15.8 0.0 0.0 3A Pref 36.2 19.8 37.3 20.0 80.0 0.0 3B Now 13.9 11.2 14.4 13.9 10.0 0.0

3B Pref 12.9 11.2 18.1 14.1 10.0 0.0 3C Now 28.5 17.5 27.3 22.1 10.0 0.0 3C Pref 19.1 14.1 16.9 9.8 10.0 0.0 3D Now 34.0 25.0 34.0 23.0 80.0 0.0 3D Pref 32.0 24.0 28.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 4A Now 12.8 10.5 13.6 13.8 0.0 0.0 4A Pref 31.8 19.1 31.8 17.6 80.0 0.0 4B Now 14.9 12.1 14.7 11.5 10.0 0.0 4B Pref 23.7 17.8 20.2 10.1 10.0 0.0 4C Now 24.8 19.0 27.0 20.6 10.0 0.0 4C Pref 17.8 11.3 16.2 10.1 10.0 0.0 4D Now 48.0 23.0 45.0 24.0 80.0 0.0 4D Pref 26.7 16.8 31.9 17.6 0.0 0.0 5A Now 12.6 9.9 12.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 5A Pref 28.0 20.0 26.0 11.0 50.0 0.0 5B Now 16.9 12.2 17.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 5B Pref 19.0 9.0 20.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 5C Now 37.0 19.0 38.0 24.0 50.0 0.0 5C Pref 23.4 11.0 18.7 10.8 0.0 0.0 5D Now 33.2 18.9 32.5 19.3 50.0 0.0 5D Pref 29.0 16.0 35.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 6A Now 17.1 12.7 13.3 12.0 0.0 0.0 6A Pref 28.4 19.4 31.1 15.9 30.0 0.0 6B Now 9.9 11.2 7.8 8.3 0.0 0.0

6B Pref 15.4 10.7 15.7 11.2 10.0 0.0 6C Now 28.9 19.8 37.1 21.9 50.0 0.0 6C Pref 26.1 19.9 23.7 12.0 30.0 0.0 6D Now 44.0 24.0 42.0 22.0 50.0 0.0 6D Pref 30.0 19.0 30.0 16.0 30.0 0.0

Culture and Leadership Results

All front-line supervisors (n=44) successfully completed the OCAI, with no missing data. Before discussing mean scores, the large standard deviation values will be discussed. As the instrument is ipsative in nature with scores ranging from 0 to 100, higher standard deviations are to be expected. This is consistent with other empirical studies (Frey, Boyd, Foster, Robinson & Gott, 2016; Kalkschmidt, 2013). This applies to culture and leadership scores for both union operators and front-line supervisors.

Mean scores generated for each current culture are: clan (18.22), adhocracy

(14.81), market (31.87), and hierarchy (35.06). Mean values for preferred culture are: clan (29.90), adhocracy (17.69), market (21.70), and hierarchy (30.66). These values are presented in Table 2. To create a baseline for evaluation of mean scores going forward,

“Differences of over 10 points are especially relevant and should induce the company to take action” (OCAI-Online, 2012, p. 11), though values less than ten do not indicate that no action should be taken. As indicated in Table 2, there is an 11-point increase from the current clan culture mean (18.22) to the preferred mean (29.90). Supervisors, therefore,

48 desire a higher level of empowerment, communication, and a higher level of care (clan increase), while the lower market score serves as an indication of a less punishing environment. Values greater than ten are in bold font.

Question two of the OCAI focuses specifically on leadership styles associated with each culture. Current leadership styles as identified by front-line supervisors are: clan (16.69), adhocracy (18.86), market (37.72), and hierarchy (26.73). Preferred leadership styles are: clan (26.14), adhocracy (16.83), market (18.98), and hierarchy

(38.07). Leadership styles that present a change of approximately 10 points include clan

(9.45 increase), market (18.74 decrease), and hierarchy (11.34 increase). This indicates a desire for needs to be met and higher levels of trust to be fostered while adapting to meet human needs (clan increase) rather than focusing on metrics and financial indicators

(market decrease). The hierarchy increase indicates a desire for leadership consistency and a clear line of understanding during task execution. Table 5 presents the values greater than 10 in bold font. The supervisor responses were anticipated given the industry of employment. Petrochemical refining is bottom line focused rather than people focused.

Table 5 Supervisor Mean Scores & SD

Mean Std. Deviation Culture Clan Now 18.22 13.36 Clan Preferred 29.90 17.89 Adhocracy Now 14.81 11.39 Adhocracy Preferred 17.69 12.35 Market Now 31.87 19.67 Market Preferred 21.70 14.13 Hierarchy Now 35.06 20.82 Hierarchy Preferred 30.66 18.42 Leadership Clan Now 16.69 11.56 Clan Preferred 26.14 14.89 Adhocracy Now 18.86 15.62 Adhocracy Preferred 16.83 10.66 Market Now 37.72 22.57 Market Preferred 18.98 11.92 Hierarchy Now 26.73 18.89 Hierarchy Preferred 38.07 22.23

All union operators (n=112) successfully completed the OCAI, with no missing data. Mean scores generated for current culture are: clan (16.27), adhocracy (13.03), market (33.17), and hierarchy (37.52). Mean values for preferred culture are: clan

(30.89), adhocracy (16.97), market (20.46), and hierarchy (31.62). Differences of greater than 10 points are found in clan (14.62 increase) and market (12.71 decrease). Union operators, therefore, desire a higher level of empowerment, communication, and a higher level of care based upon a clan increase, while the lower market score serves as an

50 indication of a less punishing environment. These values are presented in Table 6, with those greater than 10 points in bold.

Question two of the OCAI specifically focuses on leadership styles associated with each culture. Current leadership styles as identified by union operators are: clan

(15.08), adhocracy (14.33), market (42.63), and hierarchy (27.96). Preferred leadership styles are: clan (26.47), adhocracy (16.48), market (18.04), and hierarchy (39.02).

Differences of greater than 10 points are found in clan (11.39 increase), market (24.59 decrease), and hierarchy (11.06 increase). This indicates a desire for leaders to be more stable in leadership approaches, well-informed, and provide consistency in action and behavior when interacting with others. For the market decrease, personal communication with multiple union operators identified that they felt rushed to accomplish tasks from varying levels of management in order to meet production rates and customer demand, with minimal consideration applied to risk or the individual completing the task

(Anonymous, personal communication, 2018). These values are presented in Table 6, with those greater than ten points in bold. The responses by the union were reflective of their work environment, which models the actions and behaviors of the supervisors.

Table 6 Operator Mean Scores & SD

Union Scores Mean Std. Deviation Culture Clan Now 16.27 13.18 Clan Preferred 30.89 18.52 Adhocracy Now 13.03 12.08 Adhocracy Preferred 16.97 13.06 Market Now 33.17 22.27 Market Preferred 20.46 14.34 Hierarchy Now 37.52 23.27 Hierarchy Preferred 31.62 19.80 Leadership Clan Now 15.08 10.72 Clan Preferred 26.47 14.26 Adhocracy Now 14.33 13.66 Adhocracy Preferred 16.48 13.88 Market Now 42.63 25.73 Market Preferred 18.04 12.54 Hierarchy Now 27.96 20.22 Hierarchy Preferred 39.02 21.21

These values generate the information required to answer research questions one and two:

What is the current and preferred culture for union operators and front-line supervisors?

For front-line supervisors, the current culture with the highest prevalence is hierarchy.

Hierarchy is also the preferred culture, though at a decreased level from the current state

(35.06 versus 30.66). Union operators align with front-line supervisors on the perspective of current culture, generating a mean value of 37.52 for hierarchy. As with supervisors, the preferred culture for union operators is also hierarchy, with a mean value of 31.62, indicative of a desire for less micromanagement and more decentralized decisions. Secondary culture preference for front-line supervisors is clan (29.90), providing a more supportive environment and employment empowerment. Secondary culture preference for union operators is also clan (30.89). Appendix H (supervisor) and

Appendix I (union operator) provide a visual overlay of these results.

What is the current and preferred leadership style for union operators and front- line supervisors?

For front-line supervisors, as well as union operators, the current leadership style is identified as market-oriented (37.72 and 42.63, respectively). This is defined by

“leadership in the organization that is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus” (OCAI-Online, 2012, p. 43). The preferred leadership style identified by both front-line supervisors and operators was hierarchy (38.07 and

39.02, respectively). This is defined by “leadership in the organization that is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency” (OCAI-

Online, 2012, p. 43). The secondary leadership style for both groups is clan, with front- line supervisors providing a mean score of 26.14, and union operators providing a mean

53 score of 26.47. Appendix J (supervisor) and Appendix K (union operator) provide a visual overlay of these results.

Before exploring culture views based upon education and age groups, a thorough exploration of the quantitative data generated is needed. Using the work of Cameron and

Quinn (2011, p. 125), one can identify what the desire for culture shifts means and does not mean:

Clan Culture increase means:

• More employee empowerment

• More horizontal communication

• A more caring environment

Clan Culture increase does not mean:

• A culture of “niceness”

• Lack of standards

• Tolerance of mediocrity

Adhocracy Culture increase means:

• More employee suggestions

• Tolerance of first-time mistakes

• More thoughtful risk taking

Adhocracy Culture increase does not mean:

• Everyone for himself or herself

• Covering up errors

• No coordination and sharing ideas

Hierarchy Culture decrease means:

• More decentralized decisions

• Fewer roadblocks and less red tape

• Less micromanagement

Hierarchy Culture decrease does not mean:

• Not following the rules

• Not holding people accountable

• Not monitoring performance

Market Culture decrease means:

• Ongoing commitment to excellence

• Energized employees

• A less punishing environment

Market Culture decrease does not mean:

• Less pressure for performance

• Missing deadlines

• Lower quality standards

Culture Views and Demographic Factors

Paired T-tests were conducted to evaluate statistical significance. This was performed on all 24 questions using the current and preferred views. Testing was performed on union operators, front-line supervisors, as well as combined. Statistically significant (p ≤ .05) differences were identified in 20 of the questions answered by union operators (Table 7). Front-line supervisors had statistically significant differences in 16 of the 24 questions (Table 8). Combined results showed statistically significant results in

20 of the 24 questions (Table 9). The differences encompass dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. Indicative of these results is that the organization is far from an ideal state in all organizational dimensions captured through the OCAI.

Table 7 Operator Questions with Significant Differences

Paired Differences Union Operators Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) Dominant Characteristics 1A Now - 1A Pref 19.63 .001 1B Now - 1B Pref 15.22 .010 1C Now - 1C Pref 21.34 .001 1D Now - 1D Pref 24.27 .008 Organizational Leadership 2A Now - 2A Pref 16.90 .001 2C Now - 2C Pref 28.93 .001 2D Now - 2D Pref 27.21 .001 Management of Employees 3A Now - 3A Pref 24.18 .001 3C Now - 3C Pref 24.08 .001 Organization Glue 4A Now - 4A Pref 21.55 .001 4B Now - 4B Pref 17.91 .001 4C Now - 4C Pref 23.14 .001 4D Now - 4D Pref 27.58 .001 Strategic Emphases 5A Now - 5A Pref 19.11 .001 5B Now - 5B Pref 14.33 .013 5C Now - 5C Pref 23.66 .001 Success Criteria 6A Now - 6A Pref 22.27 .001 6B Now - 6B Pref 12.58 .001 6C Now - 6C Pref 24.99 .001 6D Now - 6D Pref 25.13 .001

Table 8 Supervisor Questions with Significant Differences

Paired Differences Front-Line Supervisors Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) Dominant Characteristics 1A Now - 1A Pref 19.37 .001 1C Now - 1C Pref 18.19 .014 Organizational Leadership 2A Now - 2A Pref 18.59 .002 2C Now - 2C Pref 24.59 .001 2D Now - 2D Pref 31.04 .020 Management of Employees 3A Now - 3A Pref 24.96 .015 3C Now - 3C Pref 20.69 .029 Organization Glue 4A Now - 4A Pref 20.78 .001 4B Now - 4B Pref 15.69 .005 4C Now - 4C Pref 18.91 .025 4D Now - 4D Pref 24.62 .001 Strategic Emphases 5A Now - 5A Pref 16.97 .001 5C Now - 5C Pref 22.36 .001 Success Criteria 6A Now - 6A Pref 21.23 .001 6B Now - 6B Pref 14.45 .006 6D Now - 6D Pref 27.16 .003

Table 9 Combined Questions with Significant Differences

Paired Differences Combined Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) Dominant Characteristics 1A Now - 1A Pref 19.50 .001 1B Now - 1B Pref 15.47 .019 1C Now - 1C Pref 20.44 .001 1D Now - 1D Pref 23.32 .003 Organizational Leadership 2A Now - 2A Pref 17.35 .001 2C Now - 2C Pref 27.82 .001 2D Now - 2D Pref 28.24 .001 Management of Employees 3A Now - 3A Pref 24.45 .001 3C Now - 3C Pref 23.17 .001 Organization Glue 4A Now - 4A Pref 21.41 .001 4B Now - 4B Pref 17.27 .001 4C Now - 4C Pref 22.00 .001 4D Now - 4D Pref 26.74 .001 Strategic Emphases 5A Now - 5A Pref 18.49 .001 5B Now - 5B Pref 14.41 .006 5C Now - 5C Pref 23.23 .001 Success Criteria 6A Now - 6A Pref 21.98 .001 6B Now - 6B Pref 13.09 .001 6C Now - 6C Pref 24.42 .001 6D Now - 6D Pref 25.63 .001

With identified statistical significance, one-way ANOVA testing was conducted for front line supervisor age groups. P values of less than .05 were identified in questions

3D (management of employees, hierarchy) preferred (.034), 6C (success criteria, market) now (.017), and 6D (success criteria, hierarchy) now (.006) for front-line supervisors.

Based on these results, a post hoc Tukey’s test was completed. No differences were identified in question 3D. Question 6C showed statistically significant differences between age group one and three (.032), as well as two and three (.024). 6C states “The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key” (OCAI-Online, 2012, p. 45).

Question 6D showed significant differences between groups one and three (.005). 6D states “The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical” (OCAI-Online, 2012, p. 45).

Output can be seen in Tables 10 and 11. Although there are significant differences amongst the older respondents, these variables are not perceived as a critical component for future implementation plants.

Table 10 Supervisor One-Way Anova: Age

One-Way ANOVA df Sig. 3D Pref 2 .034 41 43 6C Now 2 .017 41 43 6D Now 2 .006 41 43 Note: C-Market, D-Hierarchy

Table 11 Supervisor Tukey Test: Age

Tukey Test Age Group Age Group Sig. 6C Now 1 3 .032 2 3 .024 6D Now 1 3 .005 Note: C-Market, D-Hierarchy

For union operators, 11 questions in the ANOVA analysis revealed p values of ≤

.05. All 11, under a post hoc Tukey test, identified differences in at least one age group.

These values are found in Tables 12 and 13. This is a dramatic difference from front-line

61 supervisors, in which significant differences were found in three age groups. Ten of these were between groups 1 and 3, as well as groups 1 and 2. This result was not expected as it was believed that the younger population had already assimilated into union culture, beliefs, and behaviors. Based upon the means and standard deviations in

Table 3, there were no consistently noticeable differences based upon organizational characteristic or culture/leadership style. However, the varying perspectives need to be considered during implementation efforts.

Table 12

Operator One-Way Anova: Age

Df Sig.

1A Pref 2 .031 109 111 2A Pref 2 .003 109 111 2C Now 2 .006 109 111 2D Now 2 .002 109 111 4A Pref 2 .003 109 111 5A Now 2 .031 109 111 5C Now 2 .010 109 111 6B Now 2 .011 109 111 6B Pref 2 .026 109 111 6C Pref 2 .022 109 111 6D Now 2 .006 109 111

Table 13 Operator Tukey Test: Age

Tukey Test Age Group Age Group Sig. 1A Pref 1 2 .024 2A Pref 1 3 .003 2 3 .006 2C Now 1 2 .004 3 .020 2D Now 1 2 .009 3 .021 4A Pref 1 2 .009 3 .003 5A Now 1 2 .032 5C Now 1 2 .014 6B Now 1 2 .033 3 .016 6B Pref 1 2 .019 6C Pref 1 3 .021 6D Now 1 3 .004

The Tukey testing identified significant differences in responses based on the age demographic. For front-line supervisors, these differences were only found in values associated with question six, “criteria of success”. For union operators, 16 group differences from 11 questions were identified. Fifteen of the variations showed differences between the youngest age group (18-34) when compared with age group two

(35-54) and age group three (55 and above). Previous research into generational differences and their impact on organizational culture have provided mixed results

(Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, & Mainiero, 2009). Though outside the scope of this

64 research, consideration should be made to perform further evaluation when evaluating age group differences and their relationship to culture in unionized petrochemical environments.

ANOVA analysis regarding education level was unable to be completed. Though there were three groupings for education, only one participant in the union operator group and one participant in the front-line supervisor group marked the completion of a graduate degree. The parameters of a one-way ANOVA were violated as only one sample was collected, driving the number of education groups down. With two education groups to test, an independent T-Test was conducted. For front-line supervisors, independent T-Tests values of significance were found in questions 5C (strategic emphases, market) preferred (.023) and 5D (strategic emphases, hierarchy) preferred

(.035). Question 5C states “The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant”

(OCAI-Online, 2012, p. 45). Question 5D states “The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important.

Outputs are found in Table 14.

Associated Cohen’s d values were: 5C preferred (.739) and 5D preferred (.682).

These values fall between a medium and large effect size in the organizational perception of strategic emphasis, specifically the market and hierarchal pieces. The mean culture value for question 5C Pref was 24.8 for group one, with group two providing a decreased

65 value of 17.52. Question 5D Pref had a mean value of 26.80 for group one and a value of

35.28 for group two. These values indicate that those with a high school diploma or below desires a higher level of market culture in strategic emphasis, while those with a college education desire an increase in hierarchal strategic emphasis. It is intriguing that those with a high school diploma desire a culture in hitting targets and competitive action while those with a college degree desire efficiency and control.

Table 14 Supervisor T-Test: Education

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) 5C Pref .000 .991 2.266 41 .029 2.357 40.627 .023 5D Pref 6.928 .012 -2.184 41 .035 -2.077 29.592 .047

For union operators, the following p values of significance were generated: 1B

(dominant characteristics, adhocracy) preferred (.005), 1C (dominant characteristics, market) preferred (.002), 2C (organizational leadership, market) now (.045), 3B

(management of employees, adhocracy) preferred (.048), and 6C (criteria of success, market) now (.013). These results are available in Table 15. Cohen’s d testing for effect size produced the following results: 1B preferred (.56), 1C preferred (.67), 2C now (.43),

3B preferred (.44), and 6C now (.54). These values indicate a medium effect size.

Table 15 Operator T-Test: Education

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) 1B Pref 1.07 .301 2.81 109 .006 2.87 100.82 .005 1C Pref .001 .975 -3.28 109 .001 -3.27 93.52 .002 2C Now .707 .402 -2.04 109 .044 -2.03 92.63 .045 3B Pref 1.65 .201 -2.06 109 .041 -2.01 84.97 .048 6C Now 2.04 .155 -2.59 109 .011 -2.53 86.54 .013

Leadership Style and Demographic Factors

One-way ANOVA and independent T-Tests were conducted to evaluate statistical significance. This was performed on question two, “organizational leadership”. Testing was performed on union operators, front-line supervisors, and combined. Analysis of the demographic age factor was completed first. P values of the combined group evaluation of less than .05 were identified in questions 2A (organizational leadership, clan) now

(.012), 2A preferred (.001), 2C (organizational leadership, market) now (.003), and 2D

(organizational leadership, hierarchy) now (.007). Based on these results, a post hoc

Tukey’s test was completed. Question 2A now showed statistically significant differences between age group one and two (.023), as well as one and three (.029).

Question 2A preferred showed significant differences between groups one and three

(.001), as well as two and three (.002). Question 2C now and question 2D now identified differences between groups one and two, valued at .002 and .007, respectively. SPSS outputs are found in Tables 16 and 17. As seen in earlier results, age group one (younger population) was found to be statistically significant from groups two and three when union and front-line supervisors were combined for leadership perception. As previously postulated, this could be due to not having yet assimilated into the culture of the union.

However, the age group differences should be critically evaluated during solution implementation.

Table 16 Combined Leadership One-Way Anova: Age

One-Way ANOVA df Sig. 2A Now 2 .012 153 155 2A Pref 2 .001 153 155 2C Now 2 .003 153 155 2D Now 2 .007 153 155

Table 17 Combined Leadership Tukey Test: Age

Tukey Test Age Group Age Group Sig. 2A Now 1 2 .023 3 .029 2A Pref 1 3 .001 2 3 .002 2C Now 1 2 .002 2D Now 1 2 .007

A one-way ANOVA performed on only front-line supervisors showed no statistically significant differences between age groups and leadership evaluation.

P values of the union operator group evaluation of less than .05 were identified in questions 2A (organizational leadership, clan) preferred (.002), 2C (organizational leadership, market) now (.003), and 2D (organizational leadership, hierarchy) now (.006).

Based on these results, a post hoc Tukey’s test was completed. Question 2A now showed statistically significant differences between age group one and two (.003), as well as two and three (.006). Question 2C showed significant differences between groups one and two (.004), as well as one and three (.020). Question 2D identified differences between groups one and two (.009), as well as one and three (.021). This data identify that differences exist in leadership perception and desire when grouped by the age demographic with the majority coming from the youngest age group. The SPSS output can be found in Tables 18 and 19. Interesting values are found in the means and standard deviations. Age group 1 presented the highest mean for 2A now (19.6) but the lowest

69 mean for 2A preferred (23). Age group 3 presented the lowest value for 2A now (13.4), but the highest for 2A preferred (34). For questions 2C now and 2D now, response values of age group one was more consistent with a standard deviation of 14 and 14 respectively, while age group three had standard deviations of 30.7 and 24.

Table 18 Operator Leadership One-Way ANOVA: Age

One-Way ANOVA df Sig. 2A Pref 2 .002 109 111 2C Now 2 .003 109 111 2D Now 2 .006 109 111

Table 19 Operator Leadership Tukey Test: Age

Tukey Test Age Group Age Group Sig. 2A Pref 1 3 .003 2 3 .006 2C Now 1 2 .004 3 .020 2D Now 1 2 .009 3 .021

With two education groups to test, an independent T-Test was conducted (Table

20). For union operators, p values of significance were identified in question 2C now

(.045), with a Cohen’s d value of .39, indicating a small to medium effect size. For front- line supervisors, independent T-Tests values of significance were not found.

Table 20 Union Operator Leadership T-Test: Education

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) 2C Now .707 .402 -2.04 109 .044 -2.03 92.63 .045

For work group, a paired samples T-test was performed for front-line supervisors and union operators. Statistically significant differences were identified in leadership categories 2A (organizational leadership, clan) (.002), 2C (organizational leadership, market) (.001), and 2D (organizational leadership, hierarchy) (.020) for front-line supervisors. Union operators presented statistically significant results in 2A (.001), 2C

(.001), and 2D (.001). As operator and supervisors show significance in the same categories, they both seek changes in the clan, market, and hierarchy leadership styles.

These results are in Table 21 (supervisors) and Table 22 (union operators).

Table 21 Supervisor Leadership T-Test: Work Group

Paired Differences Supervisor T-Test Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) 2A Now - 2A Pref 18.59 .002 2C Now - 2C Pref 24.59 .001 2D Now - 2D Pref 31.04 .020

Table 22 Operator Leadership T-Test: Work Group

Paired Differences Union T-Test Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed) 2A Now - 2A Pref 16.90 .001 2C Now - 2C Pref 28.93 .001 2D Now - 2D Pref 27.21 .001

Significant differences were found across all demographic (age, position, education) factors when it comes to organizational leadership. The results indicate that respondents would prefer a more supportive leadership style that would include, at a minimum, a more structured delivery of work instruction and consistency in messages.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Data

The MLQ-5X (Appendix F) is a Likert scale instrument used for assessing leadership behaviors (Bass & Avolio, 2000). The instrument collects values based upon self-evaluation of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.

All front-line supervisors (n=44) completed the survey. For transactional leadership

72 styles, the following mean values were generated: Contingent reward (2.7), management by exception-passive (.92), and management by exception-active (1.94). For transformational leadership styles, the following mean values were generated: Intellectual stimulation (2.73), idealized behaviors (2.68), inspirational motivation (2.88), idealized attributes (2.76), and individual consideration (2.91). Finally, the laissez-faire mean value was .51. Table 23 contains the SPSS output.

Table 23 MLQ Means & SD

MLQ Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation Contingent Reward 2.70 .58 Intellectual Stimulation 2.72 .57 MBE Passive .91 .62 MBE Active 1.94 .75 Laissez Faire .50 .54 Idealized Behaviors 2.68 .62 Inspirational Motivation 2.87 .59 Idealized Attributes 2.76 .56 Individual Consideration 2.90 .65 Effectiveness 2.97 .59 Satisfaction 3.05 .68 Extra Effort 2.65 .60

Avolio and Bass (2004) provided comparative values for their instrument with a collection of respondents from the United States (n=27,285), allowing for percentile rankings. Higher percentile values indicate a leader operates in that state more frequently. Percentile rankings are seen in Table 24.

Table 24 MLQ Self-Rating Percentiles

Percentile Contingent Reward (Transactional) 40 Intellectual Stimulation (Transformational) 40 MBE Passive (Transactional) 50 MBE Active (Transactional) 65 Laissez Faire 50 Idealized Behaviors (Transformational) 35 Inspirational Motivation (Transformational) 45 Idealized Attributes (Transformational) 40 Individual Consideration (Transformational) 60 Effectiveness (Outcomes) 40 Satisfaction (Outcomes) 50 Extra Effort (Outcomes) 40

Data gathered from the MLQ instrument provide information consistent with the results seen in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. With the MLQ being a self-evaluation, front-line supervisors have identified themselves as being less transformational (clan) and more transactional (hierarchical) in their style. Except for individualized consideration (60 th percentile), all other transformational leadership styles fall below the 50 th percentile. Individualized consideration (clan) is the approach used by a leader to act as a mentor, listen to concerns, and attend to their needs. From a transactional standpoint, management by exception (hierarchical) is the category in which front-line supervisors’ self-rate at higher levels. Management by exception involves either actively monitoring and correcting employees for subpar performance, or passively

74 by intervening after problems/negative outcomes have occurred. The results of the MLQ reinforce the data gathered through the OCAI in that those in management and supervisory positions utilize hierarchy methods more frequently than clan style methods.

Summary of the Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of culture and leadership within a unionized environment. Data were collected in face-to-face settings, using the widely known and supported Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument and the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. In this section, further discussion of the study results will be presented with associated conclusions. Ultimately, the findings drawn through data analysis identified that both union and non-union front-line supervisors desire a culture and leadership shift.

First, culture leadership results identify a 10-point increase for both supervisors and union members in the clan style. Cameron and Quinn (2011) provided a clear and concise model for clan environments:

Some basic assumptions in a clan culture are that the environments can best be

managed through teamwork and employee development, customers are best

thought of as partners, the organization is in the business of developing a humane

work environment, and the major task of management is to empower employees

and facilitate their participation, commitment, and loyalty. (p. 46)

Similar results are seen in the mutual desire for a decrease in market style culture. It is key to address that market culture does not align with the idea of consumers, marketing, or a marketplace. Rather, it is based on the organization as a market itself. “It is focused on transactions with external constituencies, such as suppliers, customers, contractors, licensees, unions, and regulators (Cameron & Quinn, 2011, p. 44). This drives transactional behavior styles for the union, possibly contributing to current leadership perceptions within the organization.

Finally, the MLQ provided self-ratings that front-line supervisors are generally at, or below, the 50 th percentile for transformational leadership behaviors, and at or slightly above the 50 th percentile for transactional leadership behaviors. The MLQ is not designed to say a leader is transformational or transactional, but rather to identify if they exhibit higher quantities of these behaviors.

In summary, data collection has identified a few simple concepts. First, both union operators desire a higher level of support, trust, and interaction from front-line supervisors. Coupled with this is their desire to maintain a high level of structure and consistency with communication and job task orders. Front-line supervisors also desire a higher level of support, trust, and interaction from their managers and supervisors while creating more individual autonomy through a less rigid structure. The opportunity to improve upon culture and leadership exists, as evident in the data. Though the

76 organization may be “successful” with subpar culture and leadership, productivity, profitability, and personnel performance are all at risk unless addressed.

CHAPTER 3

RECCOMENDATIONS

With empirical literature and the data generated from this study, recommendations can be provided to assist front-line supervisors in becoming culture and leadership change agents. The first three recommendations provide a needed framework to implement changes.

Recommendation One: Create a Sense of Urgency to Drive Expeditious Change

John Kotter is a leading author and researcher regarding transformation within organizations. Driving change requires a multistep process. The first step in this process is to drive sense of urgency for the needed changes (Kotter, 2012; MacMillan & Tampoe,

2000). This entails capturing attention from the stakeholders within the organization and explaining the need for expeditious change. Urgency is imperative as “meaningful organizational change cannot occur without the cooperation of the affected” (Tanner,

2018, p. 1). Take for example Lou Gerstner, CEO of IBM in 1993. After the company had dominated the market for decades, it began to lose shares to competitors. Rather than touting optimism, he used the crisis as the needed opportunity to create buy-in (Gerstner,

2002). For change to happen, there needs to be a sense of urgency. An opportunity to generate a site wide sense of urgency previously occurred in this facility, lending to the belief that this component is achievable again (Anonymous, personal communication,

2017). Business conditions at that time put the facility in a position with only two

78 outcomes: closure or new ownership. With this knowledge, personnel aligned in their sense of urgency (Anonymous, personal communication, 2017). In the current state, urgency means open and clear communication of the potential threats to the business and the strained relationships that exist between the union and management. Simply showing the statistics from this research of needed shifts is not enough to drive urgency in the union or management ranks. Kotter (2012) suggested that 75% of a company’s management needs to buy into change for success to occur. These managers then lead from the front and provide a visual example associated with the communicated urgency

(Lynch & Morgan, 2006). This step provides the foundation and cannot be overlooked as it provides the power needed for change efforts to be effective (Cameron & Ettington,

1988).

Recommendation Two: Form a Guiding Coalition to Lead Change Efforts

“Someone with authority can demand compliance, but they can’t dictate optimism, trust, conviction, or creativity” (Walker & Soule, 2017, p. 1). Though managers, executive, and other authority figures are in place that could demand change, a guiding coalition will provide the needed transformational attributes required for successful change (Tanner, 2018). With a known change needed as evident from the data, there must be a driving force to push it ahead. Driving this change relies on a collective group of leaders as “leadership is needed for problems that do not have easy answers” (Fullan, 2001, p. 16). This statement is specifically about leading culture

79 change. Though this research focused specifically on union operators and front-line supervisors, team composition should include individuals from other groups within the organization (Bradley et al., 2018). They must be able to not only talk about the changes but also act in an appropriate manner that supports the mission and vision of the guiding coalition. Also, these individuals must be empowered to act and make a change (Pearce

& Sims Jr., 2002). This includes company decision makers and those with access to financial resources. Having a multidisciplinary team as the guiding coalition allows perspectives and inputs from all levels. The previously provided example in recommendation one that discussed facility closure was also able to generate a guiding coalition consisting of union and management members with a shared vision. “A vision provides orientation and meaning for leaders and their teams. It helps them focus their energies and engage in transformation” (Martin, McCormack, Fitzsimons, & Spirig,

2014, p. 1)

Recommendation Three: Create a Vision Statement to Communicate Preferred

Culture and Leadership

Management is tasked with a multitude of responsibilities, including setting future the direction for leadership and culture. Organizational culture change is complicated, as well as resource and time intensive. While it is known that there is a desire for culture and leadership shifts (clan, hierarchy, and market), the desired outcome must be known before implementing change. A vision statement portrays the optimal state, thus creating

80 a connection to the steps required to make the outcome a reality (Darbi, 2012). On a personal level, it tells those in the organization why a break from the past is needed and demonstrate that the future destination is advantageous. Haphazardly approaching culture change can lead to a decline rather than an improvement. Vision statements must be simple enough to be delivered, understood, and embraced. If the vision is neither feasible or desirable, and not accepted on a personal level, change efforts will not be embraced (Tanner, 2018). These mantras ultimately play a strategic role in the life of an organization and its ability to achieve culture change goals (Taiwo, Lawal, & Agwu,

2016). In the context of this organization, this change refers increasing clan culture and lowering market culture prevalence.

Recommendation Four: Formalize a Training Program for Leadership

Development

Organizations worldwide develop and implement training programs on a wide variety of topics. Research exists that discusses how training improves commitment, employee performance, productivity, and organizational outcomes (Wright & Geroy,

2001; Ahmad & Bakar, 2003; Kim, 2006). Unfortunately, “most leadership training programs are designed for ease of operational delivery within an organization, not for habit formation” (Levy, 2018, p. 1). Leadership does not have a consistent approach or style that works for all individuals or situations, thus making development and delivery more difficult. Classroom-based leadership training is particularly challenging, as only

10% of content is retained (Gurdjian, Halbeisen, & Lane, 2014). It is not just about providing new skills but helping to drive leaders into behavioral changes. Identifying areas of application within the training program allows leaders to be prepared for real- world experiences. This is challenging as the implementation of new leadership approaches occur in dynamic environments. Inevitably, leadership execution will fail to meet the mark. Though discouraging, continual guidance must be provided to leaders during their growth (Edmondson & Woolley, 2003), thus leading to recommendation five.

Recommendation Five: Create a Mentorship/Coaching Program for Continued

Leader Cultivation

Leaders are paradigm shifters that can harness vision to shift existing organizational culture (Lasker, 2011). Aspiring leaders may not be aware of how to progress in their development to drive change, creating the need for guided skill development (cultivation) to attain proficiency (Mostovicz, Kakabadse, & Kakabadse,

2009). An examination of the data identifies that front-line supervisors are in various leadership development stages, thus the need for cultivation. Personal communication with multiple front-line supervisors indicated that they would be willing to develop, however, there is no clear guidance or direction (Anonymous, personal communication,

2017). As with creating a vision statement, front-line supervisors need individual goals and action plans to become successful. These action plans develop accountability in

82 accomplishments. Much like key performance indications (KPIs), accountable metrics within these actions plans may consist of performing a transformational leadership action or a goal to focus on a higher level of listening through a collaborative and reciprocal learning partnership between mentor and mentee (Klinge, 2015).

Developing mentoring into a formal process provides all involved the ability to reflect upon lessons learned and the associated next steps for continued growth.

Coaching and mentoring not only improves the longer-term social system (culture) but also has been found to contribute to motivation, performance, and retention (Wilson &

Elman, 1990). Case studies associated with successful leadership programs contain

“well-crafted mentoring” (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007) that exchange valuable resources for learning and leading change between mentor and mentee

(Jyoti & Sharma, 2015).

The recommendations are based on data collected through the Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument, empirical research in the field, as well as from communication with company employees. With the recommendations coming from valid and well-grounded information, company leadership should work towards implementing the improvements in a timely manner.

Implementation Plan

Though the five recommendations presented are independent, the individual and group resources required for implementation are flexible. The culture change

83 management process, when using a holistic and flexible approach, helps enable organizations to see change through while avoiding failure (Scammell, 2013). The overarching theme to the recommendations is personnel development through communication, instruction, and guidance. This employee centric focus generates a method in which the change agents (guiding coalition, mentor/mentee) can draw knowledge and resources from varying areas of the implementation plan and apply them to more than one recommendation. Though the plan presented will have specifically addressed implementation actions linked to the recommendations, it should be noted that implementation elements, actions, and knowledge can be applied broadly in the change efforts.

Creating a plan to address the desired shifts in leadership and culture is a challenging process, with between 50% and 90% of efforts ultimately resulting in failure

(Candido & Santos, 2015). To assist in driving the process, a mission and vision statement (recommendation three) encompassing the values and goals should be developed. The variation applied in this scenario is that it is to not focus on outcomes

(culture change), but rather inputs (leadership styles) of those that can influence the system. Organizational culture and climate in petrochemical refining experience frequent influential events, such as collective bargaining activities, government and legal shifts, as well as unrest around the world. Creating an outcome metric when facing factors outside of the circle of control only serves to detract from the successes of the team (Barrett,

2000). Therefore, the implementation will focus on the inputs to the members initiating change, creating the framework to have influence over leadership and culture shifts.

Driving the process to complete recommendation one and two will be an implementation team that drives a sense of urgency and serves as a guiding coalition.

These are the first two elements in Kotter’s (2012) change process, with the sense of urgency being the first. Urgency is so important that Kotter expanded on his change process model and provided reference material specific to this topic. “At the beginning of any effort to make changes of any magnitude, if a sense of urgency is not high enough and complacency is not low enough, everything else becomes so much more difficult”

(Kotter, 2008, p. IX). Urgency is often misunderstood as it is viewed as simply a need to achieve milestones and accomplish goals. Kotter refers to this as false urgency. “People constantly see the frenzied action, assume it represents true urgency, and then move ahead, only to encounter problems and failures not unlike what would happen if they were surrounded by complacency” (Kotter, 2008, p. X). The guiding coalition team must assist others in embracing constructive urgency and eliminating false urgency.

The team will require a dedicated leader (recommendation two), as do most business ventures. Selecting a leader is a complicated task, as the best leads for other projects might not apply to this situation. While organization, direction, and flow are important characteristics of a team leader, they must be with an individual that can fill the roles of a coach, mentor, and educator (Nikolaou, Gouras, Vakola, & Bourantas, 2007).

The leader must also be aware and capable of demonstrating multiple leadership styles to team members. Varying leadership styles impact effectiveness and performance and must be deployed strategically for the best outcome (Wamy & Swamy, 2014). The leadership model constructed by Blanchard et al. (2016) place followers into one of four categories

• Enthusiastic Beginner

• Disillusioned Learner

• Capable but Cautious Contributor

• Self-Reliant Achiever

The approach for an enthusiastic beginner requires hierarchal leadership styles and close supervision while the self-reliant achiever is best managed through aspects such as autonomy and individual goal setting (Blanchard, Zigarmi, Zigarmi, & Halsey, 2017).

Waters, Marzano, and Mcnulty (2003) identified the needed resources to implement change. These aspects are what a significant portion of the implementation plan is based on and will be discussed in greater detail later. However, their model focuses on how leadership behaviors support and manage individual acceptance and alignment with varying degrees of change. With the focus of change on individuals, guiding coalition members must witness varying leadership styles and gain the knowledge of how and when to engage specific traits to best support personnel and associated organizational outcomes.

Implementation requires an understanding of what has previously occurred as well as creating specific future tasks. Evaluation of past training programs, topics, and outcomes and their connection to organizational culture should be undertaken (Lewis &

Thornhill, 1994). With a prevalence of hierarchal leadership/culture styles in the refinery as identified through the data, it is postulated that any previous training conducted focused on transactional leadership styles or was unsuccessful in developing transformational (clan) style leaders.

The challenge in any training program that shifts leadership styles is that they involve second order changes. To recap the literature from Watzlawick, Wakland, and

Fisch (2011), second order changes are a total disturbance to the system and are not readily accepted by the population in question. Changes with a first order magnitude generate advantage and value for the individual and collective groups as they seek to build upon existing knowledge and resources. When agreement exists among the population, changes are incremental and focused, and only marginal improvements are made, shifts are considered first order. Without consensus, changes become second order and require a different dynamic to execute. This consensus is generated by communication and activities that align with organizational vision of a culture and leadership shift (recommendation three). In addition to lack of consensus, second order changes are highlighted by their emergent and complex nature, as well as the need to

87 break from past traditions and existing paradigms. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty

(2003) highlighted the traits leaders must possess for second order changes:

• Change Agent (challenge status quo, leads change, looks for new ways)

• Flexibility (comfortable with change and diverse opinions)

• Ideals and Beliefs (defined beliefs with supportive behavior)

• Knowledge (extensive knowledge and guidance)

• Intellectual Stimulation (provides information, fosters discussion)

• Monitoring and Evaluation (impact and effectiveness)

• Optimizer (inspires, positive attitude, driving force)

As second order changes are about the individual and the group, leaders should be appealing to a deeper level with those involved. Those involved come from varying age groups, educational levels, and positions. A frequent finding from the data was that age group one (18-34) had many instances of statistically significant differences with age group two (35-54) and three (55 and older). When executing second order changes, it is important to note these differences. Though outside the scope of this study, the contributing factors are unknown. However, leaders should be aware of these differences and the potential modification to their change approach. Sharing vision (recommendation three ), boosting morale, providing subject matter expertise, and displaying the other traits provided above will be essential for cooperation and cohesion to move forward in leadership and culture shifts (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). These are in addition

88 to 14 responsibilities identified for first order changes. While all first order traits may not be needed for first order changes, “skillful use of all practices listed is required to successfully lead second order change” (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003, p. 8).

What leaders must understand through this process is possession and execution of the traits does not guarantee success, and the deep relationships and interactions needed to make change can become problematic. “It is possible that second order changes will disrupt cooperation, a sense of well-being, and cohesion. Second order changes may confront group identities, change working relationships, challenge expertise and competencies, and throw people into stages of conscious incompetence” (Waters,

Marzano, and McNulty, 2003, p.8). Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) also identify that “many people in leadership positions lack the experiential, declarative, procedural, and/or contextual knowledge necessary to lead first and second order change” (p. 13). In an expansion of the original work, Waters and Cameron (2007) identify that four leadership responsibilities can be negatively associated with second-order change. These include culture, order, communication, and input. Verra (2009) stated:

Even with well-planned change processes stakeholders are likely to perceive that

leadership is not attending to these responsibilities as well as they should. People

often report feeling disoriented, a lack of communication, leaders who seem less

accessible, and a loss of input in the decision-making process. (p. 57)

Second order changes are about setting the direction, developing people, and redesigning the organization. Easing the changes requires not only Kotter’s (2012) eight step process and alignment with second order change traits, but a simultaneous transition model such as Beckhard, Thurley, or Bridges (Galvin & Clark, 2015) to help support individuals. For the changes in this scenario, Bridges’ (1991) three transition model should be applied. These transitions stages include:

• Ending Phase: This is the phase in which individuals become resistant and

potentially recalcitrant to the status quo. Marked behaviors include fear, denial,

frustration and uncertainty.

• Neutral Phase: Bridging the gap between old and new, some remain aligned with

old values while still trying to accept the new. Individuals can be anxious,

resentful, have lower productivity, and be skeptical about the changes.

• New Beginnings: Final adjustments occur in engaging with new tasks or handling

old tasks in a new fashion.

Incorporating transitions into change models improves the success rate (Brisson-Banks,

2009). Transition and change, while potentially interchangeable terms, having separate definitions in this scenario. Change is what happens to people while transition is internal. It involves what happens in people’s minds when presented with change

(Bridges, 1991). Bridges’ (1991) model focuses on how people cope, while Kotter

(2012) focuses on holistic organizational change. Leveraging this information provides an additional input for leaders to improve their ability in becoming change agents.

Inputs, therefore, encompass training, mentorship, and coaching applied to front- line supervisors. Development of a training plan (recommendation four) focuses on providing the needed understanding and resources to these individuals. Attempting to apply leadership tactics without understanding the context, behaviors, and traits associated with different styles is ineffective. With a focus on transformational and transactional leadership, supervisors will be provided the needed information and should engage in role play to practice application. Skills practice and envisioning leadership scenarios deliberately has been found to improve leadership performance (Kouzes, 2014).

Continuing forward, coaches should be identified and matched to the supervisors that received training to assist in scenario-based practice and development.

The identification and skills development align with recommendation five. The coaching/mentoring process has been found to create psychophysiological effects on leaders that increase growth, development, and sustainability (Boyatzis, Smith, Blaize,

2017). Coaching is a valuable tool as it focuses on developing awareness and critical thinking through a structured process.

To learn these new competencies, leaders need the support of skilled

coaches who can show them the need for culture change; create a safe

environment for learning; and model the skills necessary to lead a diverse,

inclusive workforce through the culture change process. (Katz & Miller, 1996, p.

104)

They do not provide an answer but rather direct the supervisor’s thought processes to reaffirm previously learned skills and thought processes. Coaches, whether internal or external, must be carefully selected as these individuals and associated programs have been shown to contribute long term to leadership development and retention of talent

(Kombarakaran, Yang, Baker, & Fernandes, 2008). Additionally, coach/client relationships should last no longer than twelve months. After this time, and the associated development of leadership skills, transfer should be made to a mentor.

Mentors serve in some similar respects to coaches. However, mentors serve in long duration roles with a higher level of company knowledge. Those in this position must have executed leadership activities successfully and can provide specific advice to refine the supervisors. While coaches assisted the supervisor in revisiting leadership frameworks, mentors serve an extended purpose to help provide solutions to tough situations that require the critical thinking ability that aligns with an intimate knowledge of the refinery. With this intimate knowledge, mentoring creates the added benefit of an organization comprised of strong leaders that can drive it to be more competitive against industry peers. Judy (2014) stated:

Formal mentoring offers a uniquely suited approach to leadership development

because of its ability to capitalize on knowledge that is both internal and specific

to the organization, develop as broad or as targeted a group as necessary, and be

tailored to meet any organization’s goals and objectives. Together, these points

can be leveraged to make an organization more competitive – not only in strength

of existing leadership, but in readiness of ability to develop leaders for the future.

(p. 29)

Development of transformational leaders in the present can help support the development of transformational leaders in the future. The challenge in fulfilling this step in the implementation plan is not only identifying those capable of being mentors, but also in not overwhelming them with a high number of mentees.

This challenge directly impacts the initial training approach (recommendation four). With nearly 50 supervisors, it would be most beneficial to target individuals that have the ability, time, and desire to apply varying leadership styles. Operating under the

Pareto Principle, dedication of extensive time to the weakest supervisors is of limited value (Defeo, 2014). This concept, generated by Vilfredo Pareto, identifies that 20% of the population create 80% of the results. In a business setting, this equates to 20% of sales reps generating 80% of sales or the same percentage of customers equating to similar profit levels. Therefore, the training process should focus on the top 20% of supervisors. The eight to ten individuals identified, if properly trained through a formalized program, as well as coached and mentored with internal and external resources, are hypothesized to produce 80% of future culture influence results.

The reliance on these individuals does not mean that the organization is exempt from the process. “Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs” (Senge, 1990, p. 139). Learning organizations are “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 1). This is facilitated by the ability to have systematic problem solving, experimentation on new approaches, learning from experience and history, learning from industry best practices, and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently (Garvin, 1993). The organization in this study is apt at continuous improvement as it currently utilizes Six Sigma methodology for business changes. This is a process to eliminate defects and continually improve and overcome challenges through empirical and statistical methods. However, this methodology has not been applied to organizational culture and leadership to evaluate needs (Anonymous, personal communication, 2018). With data gathered through the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, as well as guidance provided in the implementation plan, resources have been provided for the organization to continue in its learning while addressing culture and leadership issues.

As previously discussed, suggested changes to culture and leadership are focused on system inputs. Leaders, to initiate change, require a framework of moral purpose, relationship building, commitment, and other traits (Fullan, 2001). Though the ubiquitous goal is to shift culture and leadership styles throughout the refinery, using this as a success metric will be detrimental to the guiding coalition and its members. Small framework improvements must be celebrated (Kotter, 2012) to keep the team motivated.

Culture is a socially constructed characteristic, thus the need to continually develop leaders through training, coaching and mentorship (Schein, 1996; O’Reilly & Chatman,

1996). As development occurs the mission and vision of the guiding coalition can shift to capturing quantitative and qualitative metrics of change through the OCAI or other measurement methods.

Future Areas of Research

It is suggested that further research is conducted into the demographic variable of age and its correlation to culture and leadership within union environments. As evident from the data, multiple instances were identified where the youngest age group

(millennials) showed statistically significant differences from older generations.

Implementing mentorship, training, and other processes now to institute change may become problematic as older employees retire and are replaced by a younger generation.

Understanding impact of age will assist in driving the vision and methodology of culture change moving forward.

Conclusion

Subpar organizational culture and leadership have been empirically found to have negative implications including higher absenteeism, higher injury rates, and lower profitability. Coupled with the unique challenges presented by labor unions (Kearney &

Mareschal, 2014), the critical nature of culture in this environment must be evaluated and addressed. Though the union population has been steadily declining in the last three decades, they remain largely influential in government, the public sector, and the private sector. In 2015, 11.1% of all U.S. workers were union members (Gitis & Rizik, 2016).

This research has identified significant gaps in organizational culture and leadership, specifically in the balance between clan, hierarchy, and market-style approaches. With this knowledge, the organization can mold and develop a team of driven and talented individuals, supervisors, and managers to bolster the longevity of the business through leadership and culture modification.

References

Achievers. (2015). The greatness gap: The state of employee disengagement . Retrieved

from http://www.achievers.com/wp-content/uploads/whitepaper-greatness-

report.pdf

Ahmad, Z. K., & Bakar, R. A. (2003). The association between training and

organisational commitment among the white-collar workers in Malaysia.

International Journal of Training and Development , 7(3), 166-185.

Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture

and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge

Management , 11 (2), 22-42.

American Psychological Association. (2008). By the numbers: A psychologically healthy

workplace fact sheet . Retrieved from

http://www.apaexcellence.org/resources/goodcompany/newsletter/article/44

APA (2015). Stress in America: Paying with our health . Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2014/stress-report.pdf

Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. (2000). Handbook of organizational

culture and climate . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J.W., & Fleenor, J.W. (2009). Are cultural

characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others’ ratings of

leadership?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (4), 876-886

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: a review and

model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15 , 121-174.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Full leadership development: building the vital

forces in organizations . Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and

sampler set (3 rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden

Bagheri, R., Sohrabi, Z., & Moradi, E. (2015, September 6). Psychometric properties of

Persian version of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (mlq). Medical Journal

of the Islamic Republic of Islam , 29 , 256.

Barrett, G. A. (2000, March). Management’s impact on behavioral safety. Professional

Safety , 45 (3), 26.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change

and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science , 23 (4), 483-500.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectations . New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational

impact . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and the organizational

culture. Public Administration Quarterly , 17 , 112-122.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York,

NY: The Free Press.

Beach, A., & Kaboolian, L. (2005). Working better together: A practical guide for union

leaders, elected officials and managers to improve public services . Retrieved

from Harvard Kennedy School: https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/working-

better-together-practical-guide-help-unions-elected-officials-and-managers-

improve-public

Bennis, W. (1968). The temporary society . New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Bi, L., Ehrich, J., & Ehrich, L. (2012, May). Confucius as transformational leader:

Lessons for ESL leadership. International Journal of Educational Management ,

26 (4), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211227791

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., Zigarmi, D., & Halsey, V. (2016). Situational leadership II.

Retrieved from https://www.kenblanchard.com/KBCPublic/media/Solutions/The-

SLII-Experience-Sample-PW.pdf

Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing

employees . Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2017, November 30). Developing sustainable

leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Learning &

Education , 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.20388381

Bradley, E. H., Brewster, A. L., McNatt, Z., Linnander, E. L., Cherlin, E., Fosburgh, H.,

... Curry, L. A. (2018, March). How guiding coalitions promote positive culture

change in hospitals: A longitudinal mixed methods interventional study. BMJ

Quality & Safety , 27 (3), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006574

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change . Boston, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Brisson-Banks, C. V. (2009, November 15). Managing change and transitions: A

comparison of different models and their commonalities. Library Management ,

31 (4/5), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011046317

Buller, K. (1995). “Us versus them”: An unscientific assessment of union and nonunion

educational benefits in libraries. Journal of Education for Library and

Information Science , 36 (1), 42-45. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40322977

100

Caldari, K. (2007, March 01). Alfred Marshall’s critical analysis of scientific

management. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought , 14 (1),

55-78.

Caldwell, B. (1994, June 20). Missteps, miscues. Information Week .

Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). The conceptual foundation of organizational

culture (Working paper 544) . Retrieved from

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/35462/b1410477.0001.0

01.pdf?sequence=2

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture

(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Candido, C. J., & Santos, S. P. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?

Journal of Management & Organization , 21 (2), 237-262.

https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.77

Carter, M., & Bartley, N. (2011). Longshoremen back at Seattle port after clash.

Retrieved from www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/longshoremen-back-at-

seattle-port-after-clash/

Case, T. A. (2010). The Great Southwest Railroad strike . College Station, TX: Tamu

Press.

Christiansen, B., & Chandan, H. C. (2017). Organizational culture and diversity in the

modern workforce . Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

101

Ciulla, J. B. (2002). Trust and the future of leadership. In N. E. Bowie (Ed.), The

Blackwell guide to business ethics (pp. 334-351). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.

Clark, P. F. (2009). Building more effective unions (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Collective bargaining . Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_bargaining

Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies , 21 (4), 673-

696.

Darbi, W. (2012, July). Of mission and vision statements and their potential impact on

employee behaviour and attitudes: The case of a public but profit-oriented tertiary

institution. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 3(14), 95-109.

Retrieved from

https://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_14_Special_Issue_July_2012/11.pd

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school

leaders for a changing world: Executive Summary . Stanford, CA: Stanford

University.

De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research . London, UK: Sage Publications

Ltd.

102

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership .

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Defeo, J. A. (2014). Juran’s quality essentials: For leaders . New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill Education.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review

organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 17 , 356-371.

Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015, April 01). Leveraging transformational and

transactional leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas.

The Leadership Quarterly , 26 (2), 204-219.

Dhingra, R., & Punia, B. K. (2016). Impact of organizational culture on employees’

readiness to change. Journal of Management Research , 16 (3), 135-147.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic

leadership: The road ahead . B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.). Amsterdam:

JAI Press.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and effectiveness of

leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 117 , 125-145.

Edmondson, A. C., & Woolley, A. W. (2003). Blackwell handbook of organizational

learning and knowledge management . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

103

Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010).

Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly,

21 (6), 1005-1034.

Fontaine, C. R. (1981, Summer). A modern look at ancient wisdom: The instruction of

Ptahhotep revisited. The Biblical Archaeologist , 44 (3), 155-160.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3299606

Fossum, J. A. (2006). Labor relations (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Frey, R. A., Boyd, M., Foster, S., Robinson, J., & Gott, M. (2016). What’s the diagnosis?

Health and Social Care in the Community , 24 (4), 450-462.

https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12220

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Galvin, T. P., & Clark, L. D. (2015). Beyond Kotter’s leading change: A broad

perspective on organizational change for senior U.S. military leaders. Retrieved

from

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/PDFfiles/PCorner/LeadingChangePrimer4.pdf

Garvin, D. A. (1993, July-August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business

Review . Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-organization

Gasper, J. M. (1992). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the

literature (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2958&context=dissertations

104

Gennard, J. (1982, July). The financial costs and returns of strikes. BJIR , 20 (2), 247-256.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1982.tb00101.x

Gerstner, L. V. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2015). The many faces of culture: Making

sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. Academy of

Management Annals , 9(1), 1-54.

Gitis, B., & Rizik, S. (2016). Union membership and economic growth. Retrieved from

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/union-membership-economic-

growth/

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist , 54 , 493-503.

Goodstein, L. D., & Nolan, T. M. (1992). Applied strategic planning, an introduction .

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., Grennan, J., & Rajgopal, S. (2016). Corporate culture:

Evidence from the field (Columbia Business School Research Paper No. 16-49).

Retrieved from SSRN:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2805602

Grant II, D. S., & Wallace, M. (1991, March). Why do strikes turn violent? American

Journal of Sociology , 96 (5), 1117-1150. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781338

105

Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014, January). Why leadership-development

programs fail. McKinsey Quarterly . Retrieved from

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/why-leadership-

development-programs-fail

Halverson, S.K., Tonidandel, S., Barlow, C., & Dipboye, R.L. (2005). Perspectives on

multirater performance assessment . Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad: ICFAI Books.

Hammond, S., & Barrett, P. (1996, January). The psychometric and practical

implications of the use of ipsative, forced-choice format, questionnaires . Paper

presented at the The British Psychological Society, Eastbourne, UK. Retrieved

from

http://www.pbarrett.net/publications/Ipsative_Testing_Hammond%20_and_Barret

t_1996.pdf

Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of

industries. Sloan Management Review , 41 (1), 23-33.

Herman, R. (1997). Reducing costly employee turnover. HR Focus , 74 (6), 15.

Hewitt Associates. (2009). 2017 trends in global employee engagement. Retrieved from

http://www.modernsurvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Trends-in-

Global-Employee-Engagement.pdf

106

Hugman, R., Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. (2011, October). When ’do no harm’ is not

enough: The ethics of research with refugees and other vulnerable groups. The

British Journal of Social Work , 41 (7), 1271-1287.

Jamieson, D. (2016). It’s about to get harder for companies to hide union-busting.

Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/union-busting-persuader-

rule_us_56f1bdcbe4b0c3ef52172770

Jaskyte, K. (2004, December 8). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and

innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership ,

15 (2), 153-168.

Jenkins, J. C. (1977). Radical transformation of organizational goals. Administrative

Science Quarterly , 22 (4), 568-586.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 765-

780.

Judy, C. (2014). The fast are eating the slow: Mentoring for leadership development as a

competitive method. Industrial and Commercial Training , 46 (1), 29-33.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-07-2013-0052

Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R.

(2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the

107

literature. Public Administration Review , 69 (6), 1087-1096. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40469029

Jyoti, J., & Sharma, P. (2015, July 23). Impact of mentoring functions on career

development: Moderating role of mentoring culture and mentoring structure.

Global Business Review , 16 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915581110

Kabanoff, B., & Daly, J. (2002). Espoused values of organisations. Australian Journal of

Management , 27 (1), 89-104.

Kalkschmidt, T. (2013). Organizational culture in a cross-cultural context. Journal of

Applied Leadership and Management , 2, 40-51. Retrieved from

http://www.journal-alm.org/article/view/11871

Katz, J. H., & Miller, F. A. (1996). Coaching leaders through culture change. Consulting

Psychology Jounral: Practice and Research , 48 (2), 104-114.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.104

Kearney, R. C., & Mareschal, P. M. (2014). Labor relations in the public sector (5th ed.).

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kim, M., & Oh, S. (2016, June 2). Assimilating to hierarchical culture: A grounded

theory study on communication among clinical nurses. PLOS , 11 (6).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156305

Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in

Korea. International Journal of Manpower , 26 (8), 722-740.

108

Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership

model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training , 38 (1), 23-32.

Klinge, C. M. (2015, July 6). A conceptual framework for mentoring in a learning

organization. American Association for Adult and Continuing Education , 26 (4).

https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515594154

Knapp, R. R. (1964). An empirical investigation of the concurrent and observational

validity of an ipsative vs a normative measure of six interpersonal values.

Educational and Psychological Measurement , 24 (1), 65-73.

Kombarakaran, F. A., Yang, J. A., Baker, M. N., & Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Executive

coaching: It work! Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 60 (1),

78-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.78

Kort, E. D. (2008). What, after all, is leadership? ’leadership’ and plural action. The

Leadership Quarterly , 19 , 409-425.

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change (1R ed.). New York, NY: Harvard Business Review

Press.

Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance . New York:

Free Press.

Kouzes, J. M. (2014). The five practices of exemplary leadership-technology . Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

109

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Kwam, P., & Walker, A. (2004). Validating the Competing Values Model as a

representation of organizational culture through inter-institutional comparisons.

Organizational Analysis, 12 (1), 21-37.

LaGuardia, D. (2008). Organizational culture. Business Source Ultimate , 62 (3), 56-61.

Lasker, Z. (2011). Cultivate leaders throughout an organization, not just at the top.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2011/07/13/cultivate-

leaders-throughout-an-organization-not-just-at-the-top/#167e3d2b1f6f

Lavine, M., Cameron, K., & Brumback, G. (2008). Making the impossible possible.

Personnel Psychology , 61 (3), 682-684.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design . Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Levy, A. (2018). Why leadership training doesn’t work. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/02/23/why-leadership-

training-doesnt-work/2/#36867fd911b4

Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (1994, September). The evaluation of training: An

organizational culture approach. Journal of European Industrial Training , 18 (8),

25-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599410068042

110

Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. (2010, October). Corporate sustainability and

organizational culture. Journal of World Business , 45 (4), 357-366.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006

Long, G. (2013). Differences between union and nonunion compensation, 2001-2011.

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

Lorenzi, N. M., & Riley, R. T. (2000, Mar-Apr). Managing change. Journal of the

American Medical Informatics Association , 7(2), 116-124.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership. A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly , 7, 385-425.

Lynch, C., & Morgan, A. (2006). Leading from the front . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Machiavelli, N., & Wootton, D. (1995). The prince (6th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Publishing Company.

MacMillan, H., & Tampoe, M. (2000). Strategic management . Oxford, UK: University

Press.

Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross

sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal , 20 , 54-60.

Martin, J., McCormack, B., Fitzsimons, D., & Spirig, R. (2014, June 25). The importance

of inspiring a shared vision. International Practice Development Journal , 4(2), 1-

111

15. Retrieved from

https://www.fons.org/Resources/Documents/Journal/Vol4No2/IPDJ_0402_04.pdf

Martinez, E. A., Beaulieu, N., Gibbons, R., Wang, T., & Pronovost, P. (2015, January

01). Organizational culture and performance. American Economic Review , 105 (5),

331-335.

Martinez-Inigo, D., Dauder, S. G., Crego, A., & Bilbao, R. D. (2012). Organizational

culture as a source of change in trade unions. Employee Relations , 34 , 394-410.

Marzano, R. J., McNulty, B. A., & Waters, T. (2001). School leadership that works .

Aurora, CO: McREL.

McDonald, S. (2012). Perception: A concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing

Knowledge, 23 , 2-9.

Meyer, J. P., & Topoinytsky, L. (2000). Best practices: Employee retention . Retrieved

from http://www.uwo.ca/faculty_staff/img/documents/culture.pdf

Mostovicz, E. I., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. P. (2009). A dynamic theory on

leadership development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30 (6),

563-576.

Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008, March). Evaluating the structural validity of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of

transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research ,

4(1), 3-14.

112

Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills

strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership

Quarterly , 18 , 154-166.

National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NLRB). (n.d.). Violence event data file.

Retrieved from www.nilrr.org/resources/violence-event-data-file/

Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011, April 01). Under which conditions do middle managers

exhibit transformational leadership behaviors? An experience sampling method

study on the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors. The Leadership

Quarterly , 22 (2), 344-352.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.009

Nikolaou, I., Gouras, A., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2007, September-December).

Selecting change agents: Exploring traits and skills in a simulated environment.

Journal of Change Management , 7(3-4), 291-313.

NLRB. (n.d.). Employee rights. Retrieved from https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-

protect/employee-rights

OCAI-Online. (2012). Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. Retrieved from

https://www.ocai-online.com/userfiles/file/ocai_enterprise_example_report.pdf

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

113

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults,

and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior , 18 , 157-200.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory z: How American business can meet the Japanese

challenge . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team

effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 24 (6), 335-344.

Parry, K. W., & Sinha, P. N. (2005). Researching the trainability of transformational

organizational leadership. Human Resource Development International , 88 , 165-

183.

Pascale, R., & Athos, A. (1981). The art of Japanese management . New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of

the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,

directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 6(2), 172-197.

https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.6.2.172

Peck, R., Olsen, C., & Devore, J. L. (2001). Introduction to statistics and data analysis .

Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

114

Pleiter, S. (2014). Engaging employees. QSB Magazine , 8-9. Retrieved from

https://smith.queensu.ca/magazine/sites/default/files/QSB%20Magazine-

Winter2014_WebV1.pdf

Post, J. E., & Altman, B. W. (1994). Managing the environmental change process:

Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 7(4),

64-81.

Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R. (2014). Business (12th ed.). Mason, OH:

South-Western.

Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R. H., Wang, X., & Egri, C. (2006). Today’s

state-owned enterprises of China: Are they dying dinosaurs or dynamic dynamos.

Strategic Management Journal , 27 (9), 825-843.

Rhee, Y., & Moon, B. (2009). Organizational culture and strategic communication

practice: Testing the competing values model (cvm) and employee

communication strategies (ecs) in North Korea. International Journal of Strategic

Communication , 3(1), 52-67.

Rick, T. (2014). Organizational culture is like an iceberg. Retrieved from

https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/culture/organizational-culture-is-like-an-iceberg/

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior , 19 (3), 217-233.

115

Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Retrieved from

www.mindgarden.com/documents/MLQGermanPsychometric.pdf

Sanders, P. (1993, July 24). Trumka calls for peace as probe continues. Charleston Daily

Mail . Retrieved from

http://www.nrtw.org/files/nrtw/Trumka%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

Sarros, J. C., Luca, E., Densten, I., & Santora, J. C. (2014). Leaders and their use of

motivating language. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35 (3),

226-240.

Scammell, A. (2013). Change management in organizations: A holistic approach for

implementation and sustainability (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/700/amandasca

mmellProject.pdf

Schein, E. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies. Administrative

Science Quarterly , 41 , 229-240.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Human

Resource Management , 24 (3), 370-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930240312

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schuster, M. H., & Kesler, G. C. (1993). Creating organizational change in union

settings: Integrating managerial, organizational and labor relations processes .

116

Retrieved from: http://kateskesler.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/07/gk_mswhi.pdf

Seba, E. (2009). Union warns of Sunday strike at Sunoco PA refineries. Retrieved from

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-refinery-strike-sunoco-

idUSTRE51Q4IC20090228

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., & Carstedt, G. (2001). Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution.

MIT Sloan Management Review , 42 (2), 24-38.

Sheridan, J. (1992, December 01). Organizational culture and employee retention.

Academy of Management , 35 (5), 1036-1056. https://doi.org/10.2307/256539

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). The impact of leaders on

employee stress and wellbeing: A systematic review of 29 years of empirical 486

research. Work & Stress , 24 , 107-139.

Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1992). Management for a small planet: Strategic decision

making and the environment . Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., Mainiero, L. A. (2009). Using the

Kaleidoscope Career Model to examine generational differences in work attitudes.

Career Development International, 14 (3), 284-302.

117

Sweet, M. R. (1991). A comparative study of ipsative and normative measurements of

personality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://surrey-

primotc.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/

Swindell Jr., J. R. (2014). Transformational leadership, perceived support,

organizational commitment, and union citizenship behavior: The effect of cultural

diversity (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations.

(3646233)

Taiwo, A. A., Lawal, F. A., & Agwu, M. E. (2016, March). Vision and mission in

organization: Myth or heuristic device? The International Journal of Business &

Management , 4(3), 127-134. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2

ahUKEwiQsoXJ_MTcAhXGk1kKHdmND2YQFjAAegQIARAC&url=http%3A

%2F%2Fwww.theijbm.com%2Fforce_download.php%3Ffile_path%3Dwp-

content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2F19.-BM1603-022-

Updated.pdf%26id%3D2576&usg=AOvVaw1GubThUSMGPNeBg9vFB8vI

Tamen, J. F. (2001, April 13). Driver, teamsters settle. Sun Sentinel . Retrieved from

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-04-13/business/0104121342_1_teamsters-

rod-carter-ups

118

Tanner, R. (2018). Leading change (step 1): Creating a sense of urgency. Retrieved from

https://managementisajourney.com/leading-change-step-1-creating-a-sense-of-

urgency/

Tsai, Y. (2011, May 14). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership

behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research , 11 (98).

https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98

Twigg, N. W., Fuller, J. B., & Hester, K. (2008, March). Transformational leadership in

labor organizations: The effects of union citizenship behaviors. Journal of Labor

Research , 29 (1), 27-41.

UFCW. (n.d.). What to expect from your employer when you organize. Retrieved from

www.ufcw1189.org/node/525

Van Eijnatten, F. M., Van der Ark, L. A., & Holloway, S. S. (2015). Ipsative

measurement and the analysis of organizational values: An alternative approach

for data analysis. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology ,

49 (2), 559-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-009-8

Venter, H. J. (2012, December). Maslow’s self-transcendence: How it can enrich

organization culture and leadership. International Journal of Business,

Humanities and Technology , 2(7), 64-71.

119

Verra, M. C. (2009). Leading change in schools: Leadership practices for a district

supported school-based reform model (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=etd

Walker, L. O & Avant, K. C. (2010). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (5 th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walker, B., & Soule, S. A. (2017, June 20). Changing company culture requires a

movement, not a mandate. Harvard Business Review . Retrieved from

https://hbr.org/2017/06/changing-company-culture-requires-a-movement-not-a-

mandate

Wamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014, February). Leadership styles. Advances in

Management , 7(2), 57-62. Retrieved from

https://www.mnsu.edu/activities/leadership/leadership_styles.pdf

Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). Balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision

with action . Aurora, CO: McREL.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years

of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement .

Retrieved from https://www.mcrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Balanced-

Leadership%C2%AE-What-30-Years-of-Research-Tells-Us-about-the-Effect-of-

Leadership-on-Student-Achievement.pdf

120

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (2011). Change: Principles of problem

formulation and problem resolution . New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Weaver, D. R. (1991). Liberalism and leadership: Lockean roots. The Leadership

Quarterly , 2, 157-174.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic reform . New York, NY: Free

Press.

Welford, R. (1995). Environmental strategy and sustainable development . London:

Routledge.

Whelan, T. J. (2007, October). Anonymity and confidentiality: Do survey respondents

know the difference? Paper presented at the Society of Southeastern Social

Psychologists, Durham, NC. Retrieved from

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tjwhelan/SSSP07_Whelan.pdf

Williams, L. S. (2008). The mission statement. Journal of Business Communication ,

45 (2), 94-119.

Williamson, O. (1975). Market and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: A

study in the economics of internal organizations . New York, NY: Free Press.

Wilson, J. A., & Elman, N. S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. Academy of

Management Executive , 4(4), 88-94. Retrieved from

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/facultyAffairs/Facult

121

yDevelopment/mentorship/mentors/Documents/Organizational%20Benefits%20o

f%20Mentoring.pdf

Wright, P., & Geroy, D. G. (2001). Changing the mindset: The training myth and the

need for world-class performance. International Journal of Human Resource

Management , 12 (4), 586-600.

Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework.

International Journal of Business Management , 4(7), 37-42.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. C. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of

organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5 ,

83-114.

122

Appendix A

Survey Demographics

Please select the category that includes your age:

£ 18-34

£ 35-54

£ 55 and above

Please select your work group:

£ Union Operator

£ Front-Line Supervisor

Please select your highest level of education:

£ High School

£ Undergraduate

£ Graduate (Master’s and above)

123

Appendix B

Survey Instrument Instructions

You are asked to rate your organization (operations) in the following questions.

The organization that you are answering for is the one that is managed by your front-line supervisor. Because this instrument is most helpful for determining ways to change the culture, you will want to ensure accuracy in your answers.

The instrument consists of six questions with four alternatives. Divide 100 points among the four alternatives depending on the extent to which each alternative is similar to your own organization. A higher number of points is to be allotted to the characteristic most similar to your organization. For example, if you think alternative “A” is most similar, “B” and “C” are somewhat similar, and “D” is hardly similar, you could assign the values of 55, 20, 20, and 5. The total for the column must equal 100.

Note the first column is for the “now” culture, while the column to the right is the

“preferred” column. In the preferred column, assign the points to the alternatives that you would like to see the most. Please complete the “now” column first, followed by the

“preferred” column.

124

Appendix C

Survey Cover Letter

Dear Survey Participant,

I am a graduate student pursuing my Doctorate in Business Administration at

Wilmington University. The purpose of this survey is to gather information about organizational culture within union environments. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete, and all responses will be confidential.

Informed Consent

1. My participation is strictly voluntary, and I may decide to abstain or stop the survey

at any time.

2. All responses will remain confidential .

3. No identifying information will be utilized in this study.

4. No direct personal rewards for participation will be received, nor will participation

affect my occupational standing.

5. If desired, a copy of the research results can be requested.

Thank You,

David Durbano

125

Appendix D

Instrument Use Approval

126

Appendix E

Graphical Representation of OCAI Preferred Culture

127

Appendix F

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

128

Appendix G

MLQ Permission

129

Appendix H

Supervisor Culture Perspective Radar Chart

Supervisor Culture Perspective

Current Preferred

Clan 40 30 20 10 Hierarchy 0 Adhocracy

Market

130

Appendix I

Union Culture Perspective Radar Chart

Union Culture Perspective

Current Preferred

Clan 40 30 20 10 Hierarchy 0 Adhocracy

Market

131

Appendix J

Supervisor Leadership Perspective Radar Chart

Supervisor Leadership Perspective

Current Preferred

Clan 40 30 20 10 Hierarchy 0 Adhocracy

Market

132

Appendix K

Union Leadership Perspective Radar Chart

Union Leadership Perspective

Current Preferred

Clan 50 40 30 20 10 Hierarchy 0 Adhocracy

Market