Purpose-The purpose of the paper is to explain the successful implementation of organizational applications, and ensuing organizational change, based on a story from a GM manufacturing plant. Design/methodology/approach-The approach involved collecting and analyzing the Hoist Story as part of a multi-year ethnographic research project designed to identify the key attributes in an ideal plant culture. Through a cooperative process of co-production, the authors worked in tandem with organizational members on issues related to organizational-culture change. Findings-The findings emphasize both the Hoist Story's process impact and outcome impact. The Hoist Story was a catalyst for the change process, resulting in a high level of buy-in across the organization; as such it contrasts with much of the management literature on "planned change." It also led to the development of several "packaged products" (e.g. a story script, video, collaboration tools) which propelled GM manufacturing culture closer to its ideal-a culture of collaboration. Using employee stories as a means to understand and drive culture change is a largely underdeveloped area of scholarship. Originality/value-This paper provides value by bridging the gap between theory and praxis. It includes the documentation and cultural analysis of the story, but illustrates how the story evolved into specific organizational-culture-change applications. This "soup-to-nuts" approach can serve as a model for organizational researchers and change agents interested in spearheading or supporting organizational-culture change.

Anthropology as a discipline is well over 100 years old; as a profession it is just gearing up. It is the diversity of anthropological work, not simply by subfield and geographic location, but by job function that has contributed to the field's expansion. This growth has led to ethical questions and issues surrounding anthropological identity, adaptation, and collegiality, as increasing numbers of anthropologists are finding alternatives to the work of the professor. While the "split" or "divide" between academic and nonacademic work now seems narrower, much more needs to be done to acknowledge that practitioners are a growing and contributing segment of the field. As the career paths of anthropologists continue to differentiate, efforts will be necessary to unify anthropology so that the work of practitioners is considered on par with academics. This article takes on that challenge and proposes solutions to help practice and academia work together to advance the field.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract