Author: Diana D Williams
Organizational Culture: The Hidden Key to Success
Organization Synergist (OS)
Organizations are a pervasive part of the every-day lives of most people. We enter the world through an organization called a hospital. We live in virtual organizations called communities that have laws and rules that we generally obey without question. Our social worlds are filled with various types of organizations such as schools, churches, and grocery stores. Many of us voluntarily join organizations whose objectives align with our own heartfelt passions. We spend a significant amount of time as employees in organizations. We even trust organizations with our most valuable resources when we enroll our children in schools and deposit our money in banks. Driskill and Brenton say it like this, “Organizations are places that carry us from cradle to grave by shaping our sense of identity, role, and meaning in life” (Driskill, Brenton, 2011, p.4).
The bottom line: organizations play a major role in our lives. Over the past two decades, scandals have destroyed the trust and confidence of many consumers as major organizations like Enron, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Countrywide Financial and more, have been reprimanded for engaging in deceptive, illegal, and unethical practices that have cost society losses in the billions of dollars. In response, two major initiatives have resulted. First, new federal regulations like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) have been passed to establish new ethical guidelines that will help to protect consumers from unethical practices and restore public confidence. The second result is increased public awareness and sensitivity to unethical behaviors in organizations.
What these two responses have effectively done, in conjunction with pressures from increased competition, is to force organizations to operate and function with new and higher standards of ethics. In order, however, for them to change how they function and operate, they must examine cultural aspects of their organization that cause them to do what they do the way they do it. In order for them to achieve substantive changes through the creation of new cultural values, they will have to recreate and change aspects of their organizational culture. Schein (2010) explains how the culture of an organization has within itself powerful unseen forces that dictate how members of that organization operate and function. Those unseen forces must be identified before they can be changed (Schein, 2010). Whatever the cultural values are, they play a significant role in the behavior of its stakeholders. As such, organizational culture plays a significant role in the performance of members, and therefore, the overall success of the organization.
A team of managers who desire to improve operations, would have to first look at the cultural values accepted and shared by its employees. For instance, to transition from an unethical to an ethical culture, would involve as Meyers (2004) explains, an understanding of ethical behavior. One would have to understand why ethical problems exist in the first place. With respect to organizational culture, Meyers (2004) states that one must go beyond identification to an understanding of the role that culture plays in the ethical decision-making process. Beginning with the former, Meyers (2004) states there are three possible explanations for unethical decisions that are made in organizations (Meyers, 2004). The first explanation is that good people sometimes make unethical decisions because of ignorance or simply not knowing what the right thing to do is. Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2013) point out the complexities involved, in that businesses have a duplicative responsibility to not only be ethical, but to also make a profit. For this reason, the approach to the ethical dilemma cannot be limited to the philosophical dimension (Ferrell et al., 2013). The second explanation given by Meyers (2004) for unethical decisions is that sometimes good people make unethical decisions by reason of being overcome by some personal weakness (Meyers, 2004). This can be limited by increasing accountability. Meyers’ (2004) third explanation is that some people are bad, and bad people simply do bad things (Meyers, 2004). These are bad apples that must be terminated (Ferrell et al.. 2013).
The point is, while all three causes are valid, Meyers correctly insists that the three causes present an incomplete picture of the ethical decision-making process in that they do not take into consideration the organizational culture within which the unethical decisions are made (Meyers, 2004). Schein (2010) reinforces Meyers’ position when he alludes to the powerful forces that are inherent within the culture of an organization. Schein (2010) attributes the strength of those inherent forces to the fact that they operate outside of one’s awareness, in the subconscious realm, meaning that one may not even be aware of their existence (Schein, 2010).
The indication is that in order to successfully implement substantive change that will impact the successful achievement of organizational goals, will require some degree of cultural analysis. Without incorporating this necessary step, it is unlikely that change will be significant or long-term.
References
Driskill, G.W., Brenton, A.L. (2011). Organizational culture in action a cultural analysis
workbook 2nd edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.
Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. (2013). Business ethics ethical decision making and cases (9th edition). South-
Western Cengage Learning. Mason, OH 45040.
Meyers, C. (2004). Institutional Culture and Individual Behavior: Creating an Ethical
Environment. Science & Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 269-276.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership 4th edition. Jossey-Bass.
San Francisco, CA 94103-1741.
Group Development Interventions
Intergroup development interventions
Organization Synergist (OS)
OD change is not only about altering what organizations are culturally, but it specifically focuses on how organizations do whatever it is they do. The focus that in times past was on the skills of the individual leader or employee, has now shifted to group functionality. The diversity of different perspectives of group members, makes groups an ideal tool for accomplishing goals in a consistently changing environment. Instead of depending on one person for a particular solution, a group offers many solutions for the same problem, from which the best can be selected. Unfortunately, groups also create a perfect scenario for conflict among its members because of different perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds joining together. Conflict within organizational divisions and departments not only impedes how the group functions among itself, but it also causes dysfunction among the groups they must coordinate with in order to accomplish the goals of their organizations. Intergroup development is a confrontational OD intervention technique that reduces misunderstandings, open communications, and develops mechanisms for greater collaboration between organizational groups. Techniques used in intergroup development are role play, opening communications, balancing power, and shifting unhealthy hostility to problem-solving confrontation (Brown, 2011).
Intergroup development begins with a six-step meeting where each group prepares three lists explaining three things: their perceptions of their own group; how they believe the other group perceives them; and their perception of the other group. In step two, each group is allowed to ask clarifying questions regarding the prepared lists. In step three, the groups meet separately to discuss the feedback received in step two. Groups divide into smaller mixed groups in step four, to diagnose the interface problems and to develop problem-solving alternatives with action plans and follow-up activities. Step five is a follow-up meeting to evaluate progress (Brown, 2011).
Goal Setting
Regardless of the type of OD intervention, goal setting will be a part of the process. Goal setting increases efficiency and effectiveness by providing direction and purpose to individuals in work groups, or the interfaces of work groups, by specifying the desired outcomes of work. Setting goals has the potential of improving employee performance by amplifying the intensity and persistence of effort, coupled with giving employees clearer role perceptions so that their work effort is focused towards specific behaviors that are likely to improve performance. Goals should be specific, and capable of being measured for progress. They should be challenging, but realistic. Channels should be created through which employees can receive regular feedback regarding their individual progress (McShane, Von Glinow, 2012).
Management by objectives
One very popular goal-setting technique is management by objectives (MBO). MBO benefits employees by integrating their personal career goals with the goals of the organization. This allows employees the opportunity to participate in setting the goals they he will be expected to accomplish, which increases their motivation. MBO also benefits the organization in two ways. First, it clarifies the goals of the organization at all levels; and second, the organization benefits by having employees that are more motivated as a result of their participation (Brown, 2011).
Specifically, MBO is a four-step process that begins with mutual agreement between manager and employee – or group — of specific goals for a specific period of time. Action plans are created for both employees and department. Periodic progress reviews are scheduled to ensure that action plans are working. Lastly, there is an annual evaluation as to whether or not goals have been achieved. This evaluation is used for salary increases and other rewards (McShane, Von Glinow, 2012).
References
Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development eighth
edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A. (2012). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill
Irwin. New York, NY 10020.
Changing Organizational Culture to Improve Performance
Corporate Culture and organizational performance
A second key component to the OD process is changing some aspect of the corporate culture of the target organization. Shared beliefs, values, assumptions, and norms all play a major role in what organizational stakeholders do and how they do it. Brown states, “Management style and corporate culture are central factors in the success of a company” (Brown, 2011, p.64). Schein explains why we must understand cultural forces. He says, “We need to understand them not only because of their power, but also because they help to explain many of our puzzling and frustrating experiences in social and organizational life” (Schein, 2010, p.7). The perception of an organization by its external environment is central to its ability to engage with that environment. Ferrell, Fraedrich, and Ferrell state, “Some cultures are so strong that to outsiders they come to represent the character of the entire organization” (Ferrell, et al., 2013). Corporate culture influences how managers and employees alike, problem-solve, respond to customers and react to competitors, and how they do what they do (Brown, 2011).
All OD change will not necessarily include a cultural change; although many will. Cultural change differs from other OD change in that it affects the basic values of the organization, changing the hearts and minds of its employees. Brown calls culture the very essence of organizations (Brown, 2011). It begins with a thorough assessment of why it’s being done, what problem is attempting to be solved, and what one means by culture. Schein explains the key assumptions this type of assessment is based upon (Schein, 2010):
o Initial data should be obtained in a group setting because culture involves shared;
o Assumptions;
o It’s more important for the members of the group to understand the meaning of their assumptions, than it is for the agent to understand them.
o Not all cultural aspects are pertinent to every problem;
o The agent should assist as a process-consultant, helping the group members decipher the meanings of their shared assumptions;
o Some assumptions will be helpful in assisting the organization with its goals, while others will be detrimental. The groups must categorize their assumptions;
o The culture-deciphering process often reveals that new practices can and should be derived from the existing culture;
o If the basic paradigm of the organization has to change, it will be a multiyear change process.
Cultural assessment is a major objective that should only be attempted with the full commitment and consent of the organization’s leaders. Using the problem to be solved as criteria, a group should be selected to participate in the assessment. The group can be as small as three and as large as 30. The room should be comfortable, with seating arranged in a circular fashion. Breakout rooms may also be necessary, especially with larger groups (Schein, 2010).
The meeting begins with statement of purpose by someone with major authority in the organization, to bring clarity to the meeting, and inclusion. The consultant presents a 15-minute lecture on culture, what it is and what it means. The group should then describe artifacts, which are written down. The question regarding artifacts is: What’s going on here. It helps to have new people in the organization, describe what they felt and saw upon entering the organization. Next is identifying espoused values. The question is: Why are you doing what you are doing? To get underlying assumptions, you check to see if espoused values that have been identified explain all the artifacts. Or, are things happening that are clearly not explained or in direct opposition with the values. Now they must categorize the assumptions as to whether they will aid or hinder the change process. Lastly, they reach a consensus on what they believe are the relevant shared assumptions, and how they affect the organizational goals (Schein, 2010).
Brown provides three initiatives to follow after the assessment. A leader needs to cast a vision for the future that employees can share with one another, focus on, and commit to. Develop a model group to lead the change. Ensure that the old culture is no longer rewarded. Use pay, promotion, and other incentives to reward the new behavior (Brown, 2011).
References
Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development eighth
edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. (2013). Business ethics ethical decision making and
cases. South-Western, Cengage Learning. Mason, OH 45040.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organization culture and leadership 4th edition. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA 94103-1741.
Managing Change In Your Organization
Change – the ultimate OD objective
Change is the primary method by which the OD process achieves the ultimate goal, the transformation of an organization from a static hierarchical ineffective structure, to a flexible, viable, and adaptable organization that is capable of flowing in sync with its external components (McShane, Von Glinow, 2012). Because those external components are rapidly and constantly changing, for any organization to remain in sync necessitates that they too must be rapidly and constantly changing. OD change is more clearly portrayed by Baulcomb who states, “Managing change is seen as being skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Baulcomb, 2003, p.275).
The difficulty in managing change, whether it is planned or unplanned, lies in the competition between what Lewin called driving and restraining forces. Lewin describes the driving forces as the problems and opportunities that create the need for change; such as a downturn in the economy, new government regulations, increased competition. He identifies restraining forces as the barriers that prevent the desired change from occurring. These barriers could be a lack of financial resources, scarcity of skilled labor, or even a lack of motivation on the part of staff and/or employees for change. Lewin’s theory of force-field analysis advocates identifying the respective forces, and then removing as many restraining forces as necessary, thereby strengthening the driving forces, enabling the implementation of the desired change to occur (Daft, Marcic, 2011).
Christian Leadership Coach
Once restraining forces have been minimized, the change agent can begin the implementation process of change. Implementation involves three stages of planned change, also identified by Lewin as: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. Lewin refers to unfreezing as the creation of motivation for change by creating serious disequilibrium through the use of disconfirming data that threatens the accomplishment of organizational goals, and creates anxiety which becomes the motivation for change. Psychological safety is created to decrease learning anxiety connected to learning new desired skills through the use of a compelling vision, formal and informal training that is also autonomous; practice fields, coaching and feedback; role models, support groups, and systems and structures to support the new concepts or skills (Schein, 2010).
Once psychological safety has been established, learning anxiety is under control, and the organization or group has been unfrozen, movement can then occur where new learning is reflected by one of two ways: scanning (trial and error), or by role modeling. When there are clear ways for things to be done, role modeling works best. When mastery of new skills involves personality and options, scanning is the most appropriate method. During this stage, cognitive redefinition occurs, or restructuring the new learning to give it acceptable meaning throughout the organization. This important step undergirds and aids the actual behavioral changes by creating new and palatable organizational paradigms (Schein, 2010).
In the third and final stage of learning change called refreezing, new concepts/learning has been internalized by the employees and stabilized. Stabilization of new behavior only occurs when new behavior has been confirmed by better results (Schein, 2010). Mitchell adds that strategies must be incorporated to prevent a return to the replaced behaviors (Mitchell, 2013).
References
Baulcomb, J. (2003). Management of change through force field analysis. Journal Of Nursing
Management, 11(4), 275-280. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2834.2003.00401.x
Daft, R.L.. Marcic, D. (2011). Understanding management 7th edition. South-Western
Cengage Learning. Mason, OH 45040.
McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A. (2012). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill
Irwin. New York, NY 10020.
Mitchell, G. (2013). Selecting the best theory to implement planned change. Nursing
Management – UK, 20(1), 32-37.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organization culture and leadership 4th edition. Jossey-Bass. San
Francisco, CA 94103-1741.
What is Organization Development (OD)?
Organization Synergist (OS)
Previously, the primary focus of organization development (OD) was defined differently, depending upon what professional was being asked. W. Warner Burke, a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University viewed OD as planned change in the culture of an organization using principles of behavioral science facilitated by a consultant. Present that same question to Lynda McDermott, a director of human resources, and she viewed OD in a much broader sense, one that focused on both culture and management systems. Jan Margolis, a corporate director had yet another perspective. She sees the OD process as strictly a senior management function (Hurley, 1983).
Regardless of which perspective seems most appropriate, each perspective correctly alludes to at least one salient aspect of OD. Changing the corporate culture is commonly a major component in the OD process. Brown (2011) suggests that culture is a key factor to outstanding financial performance, which is certainly at least one of the underlying goals of OD initiatives (Brown, 2011). Change, of course, is not restricted to culture alone, but inclusive are management systems such as organizational structures, policies, and processes. The idea that OD is solely a senior management function seemingly highlights the prominent role that leaders play in establishing cultural values, which again, play a key role in the behaviors of its citizenry (McShane, Von Glinow, 2012).
Brown defines organization development as, “an emerging discipline aimed at improving the effectiveness of the organization and its members by means of a systematic change program” (Brown, 2011, p.5). Delving slightly beneath the surface of the composite descriptions of OD, one could identify three key components in the OD process: the role of corporate culture, OD managed and planned change, performance orientation, and change itself (Brown, 2011).
References
Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development eighth
edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Hurley, P.G. (1983). Q. What in the name of OD do we do? A. change. Training &
Development Journal, 37(4), 42.
McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A. (2012). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill
Irwin. New York, NY 10020.
How to Structure Your Team for Success
Christian Leadership Coach
Studies show that 80 percent of all U.S. companies are using some form of teamwork to accomplish their objectives. Teams are being used at all levels of the organization; from the rank and file all the way to the boardroom. The team approach gives the workgroup a diverse set of skills and creativity to get things done. The question is, how do you configure your team to be most effective?
The design of the team depends upon the task that is being accomplished. All teams use some degree of interdependence. But the degree of interdependence varies from task to task. If you have a task to accomplish where everyone contributes their individual part, that’s called pooled interdependence, much like the teamwork you see in baseball. People are all in the same game even though they come and go at different times. If you have a task that requires functional grouping, where groups are responsible for specific parts of a task, this is called sequential interdependence. We see sequential interdependence in football where one group is assigned a specific section of a project. The highest degree of interdependence is when you have a task that requires everyone to work closely together and at the same time to accomplish the task. Specific functions are less defined, and there is a lot of personal contact between all the participants. An example of this highest degree of interdependence is seen in basketball (Brown, 2011).
In order to structure your team to be most effective, look at the task you are attempting to accomplish, and then structure your team accordingly.
Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development eighth edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
The New Role of Managers in 21st-Century Organizations
Organization Synergist (OS)
There is a logical reason that the role of manager in modern organizations is changing from one of superior, to one more along the lines of coach, mentor, or team leader. Because of the intense competition as a result of globalization and the Internet, and the rapid and constant changes that organizations face today primarily because of advanced technologies, the survival and success of any organization today depends upon maximizing the potential of every employee. In short, that means empowering every employee at every level of the organization to be a problem solver and a decision-maker.
Empowerment is the process of sharing vision and allowing employees to make more decisions about their own work, and allowing them to accept responsibility for those decisions. The rationale is that by giving employees more responsibility and getting them involved and engaged with the overall vision of the organization, they will be more committed and thereby more productive. This new culture of 21st-Century organizations is built upon the premiss of the empowerment of the individual. It is achieved by integrating the individual’s goals with those of the organization, and by showing the employee how his or her role in the organization fits into the big picture. People who know their value are more innovative and creative. And those are the new skill sets that organizations are looking for today. They are looking for life-long learners who are able to solve problems creatively and just in time. These are the types of people who will be sought after and retained. Welcome to the 21st-Century organization.
Jeff Immelt Gives Three Key Words for Leaders Today
Organization Synergist (OS)
Saw an interesting video today from the Dreamforce 2012 conference where GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt was one of the keynote speakers. From a 21st-Century leadership perspective, Immelt is called the, pinnacle of leadership today. To watch him, he really fits the bill of leaders today as opposed to yesterday’s more bureaucratic leaders. In other words, he doesn’t come across as being a super-genious, though he does have an MBA, and we know he’s got to be a pretty savvy guy. But he presents like what we probably expect a 21st-Century leader to look like, someone who can not only relate to “regular” people, but despite his accomplishments, has somehow managed to remain a regular guy. Whether true or not, it’s the ability to create that perception that is important. This is probably the primary reason Barak Obama got back into office. Because he acts like one of us, people assume that he empathizes with us even though his policies say otherwise. The public has genuinely accepted flawed leadership and no longer expect the same standards they once did. Please note my distinction that this is from the liberal public perspective, not the business world. My point? Perception is important. Immelt sounds quite genuine.
The commentator asked Immelt to comment on what he thought were the most important aspects for leaders today. His answer was rather succinct and consisted of three words. When asked the question, I braced myself to focus and listen intently, expecting a really complexed and intellectual response that I didn’t want to miss. I assumed I would have to focus like a laser beam. I physically relaxed when he said it was three words. So what were his three words? Not at all what I had expected to come from the pinnacle of leadership today. I personally expected brilliant and very experienced to have been included; but not so. His three words were openness, authenticity, and unity. Surprised? I was.
Immelt explained how social media has changed the expectations that people have for their leaders today. In other words, people want leaders to be open and transparent. They don’t care that leaders are not the smartest people among the group. Why? Because everybody is a leader today, especially in learning organizations where success is defined by developing organizations by developing its people. This increased value of human capital has changed, at least from the public’s perspective, what they expect from their leaders. His second word was authenticity, in the sense that people today are looking for genuineness in their leaders. The status quo is no longer working. People are no longer buying the lie that their leaders are little gods. The good part is that people don’t really care, especially as they begin to focus on their own unique abilities. His third word was unity, and how everyone wants to belong to something. Today’s leaders must understand that people expect leaders to open doors and create new opportunities for them as opposed to themselves.
The Five Most Common Reasons Leaders Fail
Leadership Coach
Thirty years of research about why executives fail indicates that approximately half of all executive careers end in failure. When comparing the behavioral patterns of successful managers with unsuccessful managers, Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy name five behavioral patterns they found absent from successful managers, while at least one of the five were present in every failed manager.
- One of the five behavioral patterns was a failure to meet business objectives, especially during times of situational difficulties. There are multiple reasons for this failure, ranging from character flaws such as blaming others, failure to keep commitments, and a lack of integrity, to making bad decisions with regard to which activities to give priority and team management (Hughes, et al., 2012, p.621). This failure could be avoided with the creation of a development plan, especially the GAPS analysis which identifies development needs.
- A second cause of manager derailment is the inability to build and lead teams (Hughes, et al., 2012, p.624). Some of the common mistakes made in team building are hiring staff with the same strengths as the leader, as opposed to hiring people who have strengths the leader lacks. Micromanaging your team can also lead to team discouragement and dysfunction. Sometimes leaders simply don’t know how to build and develop teams (Hughes, et al., 2012, p.624-625).
- The inability to develop good working relationships with co-workers can also cause derailment. These are often overly competitive, domineering mangers who are insensitive to the needs and feelings of their co-workers, while demanding everything be done their way. To avoid this pitfall, this type of manager should embrace the Theory Y perspective, learning to view co-workers as trustworthy, competent, and cooperative.
- Sometimes leaders are thrust into new situations and are unable to adapt. It could be a new boss with new ways of conducting business, or perhaps a different culture in a new office (Hughes, et al., 2012, p.626). Acceptable behavior in one environment may be unacceptable in another. Leaders must have the ability to discern the requirements of new environments and be willing to make the necessary adjustments.
- Another reason for management failure is when a manager is thrust into a new role for which he or she is not adequately skilled, especially in light of organizational pressures today to do more with fewer resources and rapidly-changing circumstances and environments. A manager may be perfectly skilled for one managerial position, and totally unprepared for another. As indicated by Hughes, et al., “Performance is often a function of technical competence” (Hughes, et al., 2012, p.626). The only way to avoid this type of derailment is to build technical competencies, either through formal education or training in specific job-related skills.
References
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., Curphy, G.J. (2012). Leadership: enhancing the lessons of
experience seventh edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY.
//