Leading Organizations Through Transition: Communication and Cultural Change 076192096X, 0761920978

Citation preview

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Leading Organizations Through Transition Communication and Cultural Change Stanley A. Deetz Sarah J. Tracy Jennifer Lyn Simpson In Cooperation with SETONWORLDWIDE

Sage Publications, Inc. ' International Educational and Professional Publisher Thousand Oaks • London • New Delhi

Copyright © 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. N o part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information:

O

Sage Publications, Inc. I 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: [email protected] Sage Publications Ltd. 6 Bonhill Street London E C 2 A 4 P U United Kingdom Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. M-32 Market Greater Kailash I N e w Delhi 110 048 India

Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Deetz, Stanley Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change / by Stanley A. Deetz, Sarah J. Tracy, and Jennifer Lyn Simpson, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7619-2096-X (cloth: alk. paper) ISBN 0-7619-2097-8 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Organizational change. 2. Corporate reorganizations. 3. Communication in organizations. I. Tracy, Sarah J. II. Simpson, Jennifer Lyn. III. Title. HD58.8.D4325 1999 658.4Ό6—dc21 99-050466 This book is printed on acid-free paper. 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Acquiring Editor: Editorial Assistant: Production Editor: Editorial Assistant: Typesetter/Designer: Indexer: Cover Designer:

Margaret H. Seawell Brian Neumann Astrid Virding Victoria Cheng Lynn Miyata Cristina Haley Candice Harm an

Contents

Introduction

ix

Leadership a n d Cultural M a n a g e m e n t W h a t This Book Does O v e r v i e w of the C h a p t e r s

χ xi xii

Acknowledgments

xv

1. M a n a g i n g H e a r t s , M i n d s , a n d S o u l s M a n a g i n g C u l t u r e as a Part of the Overall Strategic Plan Historical Roots of the Cultural A p p r o a c h Basic Elements of C o r p o r a t e Culture Cultural Sites a n d Levels Culture in the C o n t e m p o r a r y Workplace Character a n d Strength of C u l t u r e Culture a n d F u n d a m e n t a l A s s u m p t i o n s

1 3 6 8 12 14 18 21

2. A s s e s s i n g a n d C h a n g i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e

29

Reasons for Initiating Cultural C h a n g e Evaluating a Particular C u l t u r e Leading the Cultural C h a n g e The C h a n g e Process

31 35 38 42

3. Vision a n d C u l t u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t Building a Vision W h y a Long-Term Vision? A d a p t i n g to C h a n g e Building Identification Developing a n d I m p l e m e n t i n g a Vision 4. G u i d i n g I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a n d t h e Art of F r a m i n g The Centrality of Interpretations W h y Framing? The Relation of Framing to Visioning a n d Culture C h a n g e The Social Construction of Interpretive Frames Discursive Instruments for Framing The Dangers of F r a m i n g Recognizing Framing O p p o r t u n i t i e s 5. E m p l o y e e Participation a n d C u l t u r a l C h a n g e Employee Participation a n d Cultural C h a n g e Questions Regarding E m p o w e r m e n t M e t h o d s of Participation in C h a n g e Developing Principles of Dialogue 6. T h e Ethics of C u l t u r a l Control a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C h a n g e The N e e d for Ethical Considerations Cultural Elements C o n d u c i v e to Unethical Behavior Ethical Considerations of Cultural Control Creating a n Ethics P r o g r a m "Walking the Talk" Ethical Considerations of Cultural C h a n g e 7. C u l t u r e a n d Technological C h a n g e H o w Are Technology a n d Culture Related? W h a t C o u n t s as Information? Identifying Goals of Technological C h a n g e Assessing the Potential Impact of Technological C h a n g e o n Culture The Influence of Cultural Identification o n Adaptability Assessing the Usefulness of Technological C h a n g e

49 51 52 58 58 60 67 69 72 73 73 75 85 87 92 94 100 106 108 116 118 120 126 130 133 138 143 145 146 148 149 154 156

8. M a n a g i n g C u l t u r e T h r o u g h Transition P e r i o d s Organizational Transition a n d C u l t u r e Clash The Passing of a n Organizational F o u n d e r or Leader Organizational Transition O w i n g to Economic, Personnel, a n d M a r k e t C h a n g e s Mergers, Acquisitions, a n d O t h e r C o r p o r a t e Reorganizations 9. M a n a g i n g C u l t u r e i n M u l t i n a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s The Transnational Organization Today G a u g i n g Cultural Adaptivity 10. P u t t i n g a C h a n g e Process Together

160 162 162 167 171 183 185 189 196

Looking Back Managing Culture Leading a n d M a n a g i n g Writing Cases Toward a Learning Organization Putting W h a t You K n o w Into Practice

198 198 199 200 205 207

Index

221

About the Authors

231

Introduction •

S

uccess in business or b y any organization t o d a y cannot b e achieved b y formula. Positive o u t c o m e s result from luck a n d unpredictable changes in tastes a n d m a r k e t s as well as from creativity, h a r d w o r k , a n d g o o d m a n a g e m e n t . Frequently, the best w e can h o p e for is to increase the chances of b e i n g at the right place at the right time a n d b e i n g r e a d y to m e e t the challenges once there. Positive b u s i n e s s leaders face u p t o these real uncertainties a n d the lack of guarantees b y p r o m o t i n g h i g h levels of competence a n d a d a p t i v e learning e n v i r o n m e n t s in their c o m p a n i e s .

T h e t u r b u l e n t a n d u n p r e d i c t a b l e n a t u r e of the c u r r e n t b u s i n e s s situation leads to increased concern w i t h g o o d c o m m u n i c a t i o n skills. M a k i n g opportunities a n d m a k i n g the m o s t of opportunities requires developing high-performance workplaces filled w i t h m u t u a l responsibility, loyalty, a n d c o m m i t m e n t to success. To succeed t o d a y requires less surveillance a n d supervision of e m p l o y e e behavior a n d m o r e m a n a g i n g of hearts, m i n d s , a n d souls—in short, m a n a g i n g culture. This v o l u m e explores the process of b u i l d i n g a business b y exploring the relationship of cultural m a n a g e m e n t to the overall b u s i n e s s strategy a n d discussing the role of c o m m u n i c a t i o n in cultural m a n a g e m e n t . T h e various chapters discuss the role of leader c o m m u n i c a t i o n in the formation a n d r e d e v e l o p m e n t of culture as a n organization w o r k s t h r o u g h v a r i o u s changes, challenges, a n d opportunities. ix

χ

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Leadership and Cultural Management Leading by m a n a g i n g organizational culture has m a n y benefits. M o r e a u t o n o m y is experienced b y individual employees a n d units. Creativity a n d feelings of o w n e r s h i p are increased. I m p o r t a n t coordination a n d control can b e achieved w i t h o u t direct managerial intervention. N o t only are benefits clear, b u t as will b e c o m e evident, in m a n y workplaces today n o other form of m a n a g e m e n t is likely to succeed. High-performance workplaces h a v e a character a n d a soul. M a n a g i n g culture requires special communication skills. A technically proficient m a n a g e r h a s acquired trade-relevant k n o w l e d g e a n d learned h o w to gather financial information, read trends, a n d instruct e m p l o y e e s . But few m a n a g e r s h a v e learned to lead, to inspire, or to u n d e r s t a n d the basis for e m p l o y e e s ' internal motivation a n d resistance. The communication a n d w o r k habits that h a v e lead t h e m to b e selected as m a n a g e r s are often quite different from those that enable t h e m to succeed as leaders. Directing e m p l o y e e w o r k activities is quite different from enabling a n d inspiring a p p r o p r i a t e self-initiative. Presenting o n e ' s p o i n t of view persuasively is quite different from h a v i n g employees spontaneously see the situation in a particular w a y on their o w n . Cultural m a n a g e m e n t , however, is not w i t h o u t potential d o w n s i d e s a n d controversies. IBM m a n a g e r s were praised in the early eighties for h a v i n g p r o d u c e d a "strong culture" w h e r e employees were h a p p y a n d committed a n d seemed to function as virtually one body. By the late eighties these s a m e m a n a g e r s w e r e criticized for a monolithic culture p r o m o t i n g g r o u p t h i n k a n d slow responses to a rapidly changing market. Cultural m a n a g e m e n t also raises a host of ethical questions. The very concept of m a n a g i n g m i n d s , hearts, a n d souls evokes images of 1984. The widely reported image of Microsoft employees h a p p i l y giving u p nights a n d w e e k e n d s a n d family, community, a n d civic responsibilities to build W i n d o w s 95 m a y a p p e a r as a d r e a m to some, b u t p o s e d w i d e r ethical a n d social responsibility issues. In a n age of "spin doctors," cynicism a b o u n d s a n d the ability to distinguish insightful, p r o d u c t i v e reframing from politically opportunistic obscuring is an i m p o r t a n t skill. The p r o m o t i o n of communication activities that h e l p m a n a g e culture h a s to b e balanced with concern for responsibility a n d the d i l e m m a s of " e m p o w e r i n g " others. The materials in this v o l u m e are d e v e l o p e d to maintain balance a n d p r o m o t e useful discussions of the various dilem-

Introduction

Ύ

xi

m a s inherent in cultural m a n a g e m e n t . C o m m u n i c a t i o n is considered in b o t h its strategic a n d its participatory forms. Strategic c o m m u n i c a t i o n functions to direct, inspire, a n d coordinate a n d arises from a l e a d e r ' s vision or overall plan. Participatory commtinication, in contrast, is the process t h r o u g h w h i c h w e create, invent, a n d innovate together. H e r e the direction a n d best choices are n o t yet k n o w n . They are best p r o d u c e d t h r o u g h talk. The balance b e t w e e n strategic a n d participatory c o m m u nication h e l p s p r o d u c e a n a d a p t i v e , ethical, a n d v i b r a n t culture a n d h e l p s distinguish valuable from u n p r o d u c t i v e e m p l o y e e resistance to change.

What This Book Does The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of this v o l u m e is to a d d r e s s the role of c o m m u n i cation in organizational culture a n d cultural change efforts, especially d u r i n g p e r i o d s of transition, mergers, innovations, a n d globalization. T h e b o o k is u n a b a s h e d l y n o r m a t i v e a n d h o p e s to aid s t u d e n t s a n d p r o fessionals in u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d w o r k i n g w i t h organizational cultural change. Despite 20 years of cultural studies in the field of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d increasing n u m b e r s of corrununication professionals a n d academics b e ing called to w o r k w i t h organizational cultural change efforts, n o b o o k in the field h a s a d d r e s s e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d change efforts as a central theme. A n d a l t h o u g h t r a d e b o o k s a n d m a n a g e m e n t texts h a v e focused on cultural change, they h a v e t e n d e d to b e slim a n d superficial in the treatment of communication. Additionally, the best of these b o o k s h a v e b e c o m e q u i t e d a t e d a n d d o n o t reflect c o n t e m p o r a r y situations a n d understandings. T h e m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d in this b o o k w e r e initially d e v e l o p e d as the electronic text for a n online course in organizational culture a n d culture c h a n g e as p a r t of a n executive m a s t e r ' s p r o g r a m at Seton H a l l University—SETONWORLDWIDE. The materials a n d course h a v e b e e n very successful w i t h mid-level m a n a g e r s . The audience for the course, however, is greatly restricted. With the a g r e e m e n t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t of SETONWORLDWIDE, w e redeveloped the materials to w o r k w i t h a s o m e w h a t less sophisticated s t u d e n t a n d professional audience.

xii Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

The material in the v o l u m e proceeds from relatively general issues related to communication, culture, a n d cultural c h a n g e to specific p r a c tical contexts w h e r e these concepts are of value. Each chapter begins w i t h c o m m o n questions that g u i d e the d e v e l o p m e n t of the chapter. We s u g gest considering t h e m o n y o u r o w n before y o u begin y o u r reading. You m a y also find it useful to pose y o u r o w n related questions. Case studies are u s e d t h r o u g h o u t to p r o v i d e examples of organizational change efforts, highlight concerns raised in the text, a n d a d d the complexity of actual life choices. The cases are n o t m e a n t simply to exemplify concepts b u t rather to p o s e issues for discussion w i t h others. Additional cases are suggested at the e n d of several of the chapters.

Overview of the Chapters C h a p t e r 1 introduces the relation b e t w e e n the l e a d e r ' s b u i l d i n g a successful business a n d the m a n a g e m e n t of culture. It begins w i t h a consideration of h o w m a n a g i n g the workplace culture relates to the overall strategic d e v e l o p m e n t of a business. The chapter s h o w s w h y the concern w i t h culture h a s been a major feature of business thinking d u r i n g the past 20 years a n d w h y this trend is likely to continue. Basic concepts are introduced that are used for the r e m a i n d e r of the v o l u m e . C h a p t e r 2 focuses on cultural assessment a n d c h a n g e as a p a r t of b u i l d i n g a business a n d w o r k i n g in organizations. Included are discussions of w h a t a positive culture accomplishes in the workplace, h o w o n e determines the appropriateness of the existing culture, a n d basic considerations in a change process. C h a p t e r 3 considers h o w business concepts, visions, or mission statem e n t s relate to b u i l d i n g a business a n d the d e v e l o p m e n t a n d transform a t i o n of culture. Included are discussions of the characteristics of p o w erful visions, h o w one launches a vision campaign, h o w the vision can b e connected to other workplace activities, a n d h o w one achieves b u y - i n from key employees. Finally, the chapter investigates h o w individuals invest their identity in the organization a n d explores w a y s to r e w a r d such investments. C h a p t e r 4 discusses the processes t h r o u g h w h i c h p e o p l e d e v e l o p their interpretations of events. Consideration is given to h o w a l e a d e r ' s

Introduction

V

xiii

values a n d perspective b e c o m e e m b e d d e d in the corporate culture. The discussion focuses o n h o w l a n g u a g e u s a g e , stories, a n d ritual can s h a p e , frame, or reframe e m p l o y e e s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of events. C h a p t e r 5 considers the various processes leading to the collaborative d e v e l o p m e n t of visions. The process of e m p o w e r m e n t is d e v e l o p e d . Strategic conversation a n d dialogue projects are s h o w n to b e useful in creating alternative futures a n d o p e n i n g the business to the w i d e r collective learning process. Widespread participation is s h o w n to aid i n n o vation as well as loyalty a n d c o m m i t m e n t . C h a p t e r 6 explores a n u m b e r of ethical issues in investigating a n d changing cultures. Cultural m a n a g e m e n t raises a host of ethical q u e s tions. Are s o m e cultures m o r e ethical than others? H o w d o cultural characteristics relate to the ethical b e h a v i o r of m e m b e r s ? W h a t are the ethical issues related to cultural control a n d cultural assessment? C h a p t e r 7 looks at the probable impacts of the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of n e w technologies, especially information technologies, o n cultures. T h e c h a p ter considers the information m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s (IMS) subculture a n d its relation to w i d e r organizational cultures, h o w technological inn o v a t i o n influences p o w e r d y n a m i c s , h o w particular cultures resist technological innovation, a n d h o w others overly idealize it. Special attention is given to h o w one w o r k s w i t h cultural issues d u r i n g technological i m plementation. C h a p t e r 8 looks at cultural changes a n d w a y s of m a n a g i n g culture d u r i n g organizational transitions. Such transitions include the passing of the founder a n d other changes in top m a n a g e m e n t , economic crises, a n d reengineering a n d reorganization activities as well as m e r g e r s a n d acquisition. C h a p t e r 9 introduces issues related to the globalization of business a n d the relations a m o n g multiple cultures. The chapter encourages the recognition of the possibility of multiple positive cultures, the d e v e l o p m e n t of multiple cultural forms of leadership, a n d the translation of visions into multiple cultural contexts. Special attention is given to interc u l t u r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d the relation of different a n d at t i m e s c o m p e t i n g cultures in international organizations. C h a p t e r 10 p r o v i d e s a review a n d a n extensive case focused o n learning w h e n to lead a n d w h e n to m a n a g e , h o w to choose m o m e n t s for intervention, a n d h o w to direct existing trends u s i n g the material develo p e d in the book.

Acknowledgments •

A

s w i t h a n y book, family a n d friends h a v e p r o v i d e d critical h e l p a n d s u p p o r t at m a n y different stages. They each k n o w h o w m u c h w e h a v e appreciated it. A few w e each credit specifically below. Furtherm o r e , w e w a n t to a c k n o w l e d g e o u r s t u d e n t s at CU-Boulder w h o listened patiently to ideas a n d p r o v i d e d several of the examples illustrated in this book. M o r e specifically, D o n McKenna of Seton Hall University initially solicited the materials for the SETONWORLDWIDE online course that b e c a m e this b o o k a n d p r o v i d e d v a l u e d c o m m e n t s o n t h e materials. Patricia Sikora d e v e l o p e d a n d allowed u s to u s e the case s t u d y t h a t forms the b u l k of C h a p t e r 10, as well as participated in useful discussions of change efforts. All the p e o p l e at Sage Publications h a v e m a d e special efforts to b r i n g this v o l u m e to a timely completion. Margaret Sea well in particular w e n t well b e y o n d the call of d u t y (and p r o m i s e d glue that lasts). F r o m Jen: M y M o m a n d D a d , Mike a n d Carol Simpson, d e s e r v e special t h a n k s for p r o v i d i n g e x e m p l a r y m o d e l s of leadership d u r i n g m y early life. M y brother Rob h a s encouraged, uplifted, p o k e d fun, a n d p r o v o k e d m e to success m o r e times t h a n I can count. T h a n k s , again. From Sarah: M y parents, M a l i n d a a n d Boyd, a n d m y b r o t h e r Van, as well as m y religious faith, h a v e sustained m e t h r o u g h o u t all m y acad e m i c e n d e a v o r s . For this I h a v e the deepest gratitude. To Catherine, xv

xvi

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

t h a n k y o u for being a wonderful friend, a n d for telling m e (sometimes n o t so gently) to "get back to w o r k " w h e n e v e r I procrastinate too long. From Stan: A special thanks to Alexander, w h o lived a r o u n d m y hectic w o r k schedule a n d finds fun a n d b e a u t y in w h a t e v e r the w o r l d tosses his w a y (and likes to see his n a m e in print). —Stanley A. Deetz, Sarah J. Tracy, a n d Jennifer Lyn Simpson Boulder, Colorado

1

•

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Overview Managing the hearts, minds, and souls of employees is a key element of building a successful business today. For the past 20 years this need has been loosely conceptualized as managing the "corporate culture/' Actually, the concerns this term highlights have been of interest to leaders for a long time. John Clemens (1986) traced the Western world's concern with corporate culture to a funeral oration by Pericles in 431 B.C. Pericles, now recognized as the father of Athens's Golden Age, was attempting to inspire unity in his people in their battle with Sparta. The speech effectively displayed the two central elements of establishing a strong corporate culture: determining what makes the organization different and eloquently communicating those differences to the organizational members. At least since that time, scholars and managers have tried to get a handle on the elusive subjective side of work life. Whether the concern has been with "spirit," "climate," "meaning of work," or "quality of work life," the core issues have been the same. H u m a n beings are more than rational creatures. They are not animated machines. H o w employees personally feel, think, and see the company and their work have a significant impact on the character and quality of their work, their relation to management, and their 1

2

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

response to innovation and change. Culture is a concept many have found useful and necessary to understanding, managing, and strategically changing organizations. This chapter provides an introduction to the role of communication in developing and transforming corporate culture. First, the culture concept is developed in relation to the overall plan of building a business. Second is a discussion of the social, economic, and historical changes that have accentuated the concern with corporate culture in recent years. Third, the roots of the organizational culture approach in business are discussed. Finally, the concept of culture is developed in such a way as to aid our attention to the values and decisional premises that underlie organizational behavior and highlight different assumptions people make about the nature of others and work.

Key Objectives of the Chapter Τ To develop the capacity to integrate cultural concerns in the overall business plan Τ

To recognize the conditions leading to the need to manage culture

Τ

To recognize the external and internal factors contributing to specific cultural characteristics in an organization

Ψ

To identify different culture sites or levels

Ψ

To begin to examine how underlying values and decisional premises influence behavior and decisions in actual workplaces

Τ

To recognize differences in the character of different cultures and the relation to work activities

Τ

To recognize the fundamentally different assumptions people make about their work world and the consequences for leadership.

Questions to Consider Ύ When you build a strategic plan, how do you take into account human factors? W

How can various activities of an organization be difficult to coordinate?

Ψ

Do you feel that members of organizations you are involved in "walk their talk"? If so, where is this most evident? If not, what have been the consequences?

Τ

Do you think that the wider national culture greatly influences the productivity of employees and companies?

Ψ

Do you think people naturally enjoy quality work? Do authority structures, reward systems, task quality, or intangibles of work life have the greatest influence on employee commitment and productivity?

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

^

Τ

3

Managing Culture as a Part of the Overall Strategic Plan

A successful business strategy results from a number of key considerations. First, market conditions largely determine the possible financial success of the selling of any g o o d or service. Identification of and customizing the product to a particular market niche is central to building any business. Second, control of critical performance variables is central to keeping production costs d o w n and meeting the challenge of p o tential competitors. Third, adequate monitoring of the environment and making adaptive changes is essential to continued success under changing resource and market conditions. Finally, a workforce must be recruited and developed in w a y s that support the aforementioned needs.

The Relation Between Strategy and Culture The corporate culture is not just one of many considerations in building a business. Rather the culture impacts on each of the strategic dimensions listed above. The w a y organizational members think and feel influences the relation to the market, workplace performance, adaptability, and workforce development and commitment. A positive business strategy and positive corporate culture go hand in hand. A n effective strategy must grow out of the culture and the culture must be strategically shaped. A positive workplace culture actualizes the latent potential in all members and reduces the need for managerial intervention and direction. All employees have the potential to contribute, d o right, achieve, and create. Accomplishing each of these potentials can be thwarted by various organizational blocks. The desire to contribute is blocked by uncertainty about purpose. The desire to do right is limited b y work pressures and the temptation to serve one's self. The desire to achieve can be sidetracked by lack of focus or of resources. A n d the desire to create cannot be fulfilled if opportunities are lacking or there is a fear of risk. Actualizing these potentials requires both a business strategy and appropriate cultural conditions. The ability of an employee to contribute is enhanced b y the effective communication of core values and mission. The ability to d o right is aided b y specifying and enforcing of the rules of the game. The ability to achieve is supported by carefully built and supported targets. A n d the ability to create is stimulated by open organizational dialogue to encourage learning.

4 Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

If support for these potentials is built into the corporate culture, the need for direct intervention by upper managers is lessened and commitment, autonomy, and motivation are increased. The old v i e w of business called for direct managerial supervision. Employees were seen as needing to be motivated, pushed, or coerced into meeting business objectives. Compliance w a s an endless issue. A corporate culture w a s developed and reinforced that required more of the same. The n e w cultural view says that employees are not inherently lazy and resistant, nor are they naturally motivated and open to change. The nature of the employee is a cultural product. A positive corporate culture creates employee potentials and the context in which they can be realized. Culture enhances social integration; social integration eliminates the need for bureaucracy, and increases levels of investment which, in turn, enhance performance and productivity. Thus, by manipulating culture, substantial increments in profitability should accrue. —Gideon Kunda and Stephen Barley (1988, p. 21)

Why Lead by Managing Culture? Successful business leaders have gradually m o v e d from traditional forms of management, primarily based in hierarchical decision making and managerial supervision and control, to managing by managing culture. Many reasons exist for this change. They have to d o with structural, social, and market changes. A s long as these n e w conditions persist, the competitive advantage will continue to go to businesses that focus on the corporate culture. The most obvious, and best understood, reason for the change to managing corporate culture w a s the perception that some cultures lead to greater productivity than others. In the late 1970s, managers in the United States saw increasing economic difficulties in their companies largely arising from Japanese competition. Even superficial analyses revealed that cultural features were a major reason w h y Japanese workers were more productive and their products of higher quality. At that time, the stronger, clanlike corporate cultures of Japan provided production innovations and worker dedication unmatched by American companies. American managers rushed to learn the Japanese w a y and companies in the United States with strong cultures were suddenly highlighted. The success of Japanese companies, viewed partly as a result of their cultural

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

Ύ

5

distinctiveness, e n c o u r a g e d Western m a n a g e r s to analyze h o w their corp o r a t i o n s c o u l d m a k e better u s e of t e a m spirit, corporate p r i d e , a n d w o r k e r morale. M o r e subtle changes w e r e taking place, however, that m a y account for the Japanese success at that time a n d the fact that cultural m a n a g e m e n t h a s persisted longer t h a n the Japanese success story. I m p o r t a n t social changes a n d changes in the n a t u r e of p r o d u c t s a n d w o r k processes p r o v i d e d m a n a g e m e n t w i t h a crisis of control. The rise of professionalized w o r k p l a c e s , geographically dispersed facilities, decentralization, a n d turbulent m a r k e t s contributed to the difficulty of coordination a n d control. A s is explored in C h a p t e r 2, each of these conditions m a k e s corp o r a t e culture of m o r e interest. In the face of these changes, the u s e of m o r e indirect a n d u n o b t r u s i v e control t h r o u g h cultural m a n a g e m e n t offers possibilities a n d a d v a n tages n o t shared b y traditional activities. In fact, m a n y workplaces could n o t function at all w i t h o u t a strong shared culture. M o s t of these n e w social realities are n o t likely to go away. Cultural m a n a g e m e n t will continue to b e a key feature of successful business for s o m e time. C u l t u r a l m a n a g e m e n t presents a different form of leadership, a form u n d e r s t o o d in Eastern cultures for s o m e time:

T h e Way of Lao T z u , N u m b e r 17 The best (rulers) are those w h o s e existence is (merely) k n o w n b y the people. The next best are those w h o are loved a n d praised. The next are those w h o are feared. The next are those w h o are despised. It is only w h e n o n e d o e s n o t h a v e e n o u g h faith in others that others h a v e n o faith in h i m . (The great rulers) value their w o r d s highly. T h e y accomplish their task; they complete their w o r k . Nevertheless their p e o p l e say that they simply follow n a t u r e . —4th/6th century B.C. (1963, p. 130)

If the leader u s e d few b u t carefully chosen w o r d s , the w a y will s e e m n a t u r a l a n d p e o p l e will feel that the m e t h o d s a n d a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s are their o w n .

6

Ύ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

Exercise 1.1 •

How can organizations contribute to the member's potential to contribute, to do right, to achieve, and to create?

» When you consider yourself as a member of an organization (including an academic or university community), to what extent do you believe that your department's administration has considered your beliefs and values? In what ways have these been taken into account? In which ways have they been ignored or glossed over?

Historical Roots of the Cultural Approach This ability to perceive the limitations of one's own culture and to develop the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership. The most important message for leaders at this point is "Try to understand culture, give it its due, and ask yourself how well you can begin to understand the culture in which you are embedded." —Edwin Schein (1992, p . 2) Until a shift in focus d u r i n g the early 1980s, m o s t organizational scholars a n d leaders strove to p r o v i d e a scientific, objective, a n d causal u n d e r s t a n d i n g of organizations. Organizational studies m e a s u r e d o u t c o m e s — such as productivity, effectiveness, a n d e m p l o y e e satisfaction—so that they could b e predicted a n d controlled in the future. In this tradition, organizational m e t a p h o r s w e r e p a t t e r n e d after the scientific a p p r o a c h a n d businesses w e r e c o m p a r e d to m a c h i n e s or systems. These m e t a p h o r s led researchers a n d practitioners to conceive of c o m m u n i c a t i o n as just a n o t h e r variable that could b e u n d e r s t o o d t h r o u g h the lenses of inp u t a n d o u t p u t rather than a n i m p o r t a n t p h e n o m e n o n in a n d of itself.

A Scholarly Approach to Culture This traditional a p p r o a c h c a m e u n d e r fire in the late 1970s as organizational scholars b e g a n to d e v e l o p the organizational cultural a p p r o a c h . W h e r e a s the traditional a p p r o a c h c o m p a r e s organizations to m a c h i n e s , those interested in culture use analogies that c o m p a r e organizations to

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

V

7

clans or tribes. The underlying motive of the organizational cultural approach is to understand and learn h o w organizational life is accomplished through communication. Inherent in this v i e w is that meanings d o not reside in messages, channels, or texts on screens; rather they unfold through social interaction and sense-making activities of people. In the academy, the ideas of organizational culture draw quite heavily from the field of anthropology, with one of the leading proponents of this interpretive approach being the anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Cultural theorists attempt to provide vivid descriptive accounts of organizational life and concern themselves with articulating the recurrent themes that specify the links among values, beliefs, and action in an organization. According to anthropologist K. L. Gregory (1983), w h o studied knowledgeintensive companies in Silicon Valley, the corporate world is just as w o n drous, strange, and exotic and full of specialized meanings and significance as a remote village on the other side of the Himalayas. Thinking about the organization as a clan or tribe with an exotic culture can lead to important n e w insights.

The Business World Catches the Culture Craze Three groundbreaking books had an unprecedented impact on American corporate leaders. Since their publication in the early 1980s, business books have skyrocketed in popularity. These three best-sellers appeared during a time of international competition and domestic economic turbulence. The books helped corporate leaders to focus on organizational values, visions, and leadership, concepts that are integral to the culture management approach.

William Ouchi's Theory Z. The first book to popularize the concept of organizational culture w a s William Ouchi's Theory Ζ (1981). Ouchi's book explained h o w corporate success correlated with the organization's ability to adjust to its surrounding national culture(s) and its particular standards for excellence. The primary conclusion of his analysis w a s that the best type of an organization (a "Theory Z" type) w o u l d integrate the values of individual achievement and advancement c o m m o n to U.S. organizations with the sense of community so c o m m o n in the Japanese workplace.

8 •

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy's Corporate Cultures. Another bestseller that analyzed organization culture w a s Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy's Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (1982). Whereas Ouchi (1981) focused on values and norms ascribed to particular national cultures, Deal and Kennedy detailed the varying components that make up a "strong" culture. They identified five: (a) the business's external environment, (b) organizational values, (c) organizational heroes, (d) rites and rituals, and (e) the cultural network. Tom Peters and Robert Waterman's In Search of Excellence. The third book that brought culture to the forefront of corporate thought w a s Tom Peters and Robert Waterman's In Search of Excellence (1982). The authors analyzed 62 companies that had been described as "excellent" b y journalists, scholarly experts, and employees. They found eight c o m m o n themes that illustrated these businesses' cultures: (a) a bias for action; (b) close to the customer; (c) autonomy and entrepreneurship; (d) productivity through people; (e) hands-on, value-driven; (f) stick to the knitting; (g) simple form, lean staff; and (h) simultaneously loose-tight properties. From the brief descriptions of these books, a preliminary idea of what culture is emerges. Nevertheless, its definition is in no w a y explicit or clear-cut, and researchers continue to argue about h o w culture should best be understood.

^

Basic Elements of Corporate Culture

Culture has been described as everything from c o m m o n systems of values, beliefs, and norms to collections of shared social knowledge. The organizational culture construct is derived from that used in anthropolo g y yet even here scholars have disagreed on its definition. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) defines culture as "the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings interpret their experience and guide their action; social structure is the form that action takes, the actually existing network of social relations" (p. 145). Geertz compares culture to a spiderweb that people spin through their everyday communication with each other. Some have argued that it is difficult for the organizational theorist to borrow the cultural construct in its entirety. Be that as it may, the con-

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

Τ

9

struct continues to be widely used in the study of organizations. Edwin Schein (1992, p. 9) outlines some of the most widely used conceptions of culture. They include observed behavioral regularities w h e n people interact (e.g., language, traditions, rituals); group norms, standards, and values; espoused or articulated values; formal philosophy; rules of the "game"; learning the organizational "ropes"; climate, or the feeling portrayed through organization's physical layout and the w a y people relate with each other; embedded skills or the special abilities of the organization (not necessarily articulated in writing); habits of thinking, mental models, and other linguistic paradigms; shared meanings; and "root metaphors," or integrating symbols. Linda Smircich and Marta Calas (1987) suggest that w e should not think of culture as some kind of thing, container, or possession. They argue that culture is not what an organization has; rather, it represents what an organization is.

Culture: Two Worldviews O n e major division in the culture approach is whether primacy should be on internal psychological factors (such as underlying beliefs, assumptions, and unconscious mental frameworks) or whether w e should focus more on external factors (such as behavior, language, physical artifacts, and company rhetoric). With this question of primacy, another question emerges. Do internal values create external behaviors and communication patterns, or d o external actions create people's internal assumptions and beliefs? In the first worldview, cultural change is conceived of as emanating from internal, deep value change. A s Ouchi (1981) says, "A culture changes slowly because its values reach deeply and integrate into a consistent network of beliefs that tend to maintain the status quo" (quoted in Schein, 1992, p. 75). A basic assumption of this view is that an organization can best change its habits and actions by first changing its employees' internal values and belief structures. In the second worldview, the focus is on external behaviors, actions, and communication patterns as shaping and forming internal values and beliefs. According to this view, the best w a y to go about changing an organization's culture is to first change its everyday habits, communication patterns, and espoused goals. For instance, the psychologist Daryl J. Bern (1972) developed a "self perception" theory that argues that people first observe their behaviors and communication and then conclude that they hold values that uphold their earlier actions (Bern, 1972). In this

10

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Internal

Factors

(assumptions, values, attitudes, beliefs) Figure 1.1. The Culture Process NOTE: Managers can control everyday communication and espoused values through framing and visioning. This, in turn, can affect underlying assumptions. The more the two spheres overlap, the more closely behavior is congruent with the articulated goals of the organization.

view, an organization can be regarded as a system of symbols that socially construct peoples' values. These symbols, or discursive instruments, create order and clarity out of chaos. Examples range from verbal symbols such as organizational myths, jokes, stories, slogans, and corporate logos to material elements such as the physical layout of work and office space, exterior design, and the designation of parking spaces for employees.

An Integrated

Approach

A useful alternative view is more extensive, and admittedly fuzzier, than the t w o world views described above. In this alternative view, culture is inherently implicated in both what w e do and h o w w e think about what w e do. Culture is made u p of and mutually constituted b y both the internal and the external; values affect behaviors, and behaviors affect values. Together, the t w o create organizational culture. Thus, culture should not be thought of as a product that an organization has; rather culture is the ongoing process of what an organization is (see Figure 1.1.).

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Ψ 11 Although internal and external elements are equally important in making up a culture, organizational leaders have more direct control in shaping communication patterns and overt behaviors than they d o in changing deep-rooted value systems. Therefore, much of this book's focus will be on h o w leaders can create and change a culture through the w a y they communicate. Chapter 3 examines h o w leaders can affect the espoused values, norms, and rules of their organization through visioning and h o w this can shape employees' identification with the organization. Chapter 4 focuses on h o w managers can best frame organizational stories, myths, and everyday communication so that they are in line with the values that are best for the organization. In summary, culture can be considered to be a set of loosely structured symbols that are maintained and co-created by a recreative pattern of internal factors (such as attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and ideologies) and external factors (such as language, behaviors, espoused values, and physical artifacts). These symbols, and an absence of other symbols, help make sense of organizational members' shared (and unshared) values, beliefs, and assumptions. Exercise

1.2

Describe an experience where you have been involved with an organization where people talked about or espoused one set of values, but behaved in a way that exemplified other values. • What kinds of beliefs and values dominated this organization's formal literature (organizational mission, rules, and regulations)? • What kinds of beliefs, values, and topics dominated informal communication and everyday organizational member behavior? * Were the organization's espoused values congruent with the employees' or members' everyday behaviors? • What does this tell you about this organization?

Think of three influential people in an organization with which you are familiar. * In what ways do they symbolize the character of the organization? * Are their actions more in line with the organization's explicit mission or with informal organizational myths?

12

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

department culture [regional / industrial / professional culture national / global culture management culture

social cultures

[organizational culture

•

worker culture

1

Figure 1.2. Culture Levels

|> Cultural Sites and Levels Culture is n o t something that is easy to control. O n e of t h e central difficulties of m a n a g i n g culture is u n d e r s t a n d i n g the multiple organizational subcultures a n d countercultures. By focusing o n o n e distinct overriding culture, the m a n a g e r can lose sight of the great likelihood that there are overlapping (and sometimes conflicting) cultures that coexist at different levels a n d sectors in a n y organization. T h u s , multiple values simultaneously c o m p e t e in their goal of s h a p i n g the organization (see Figure 1.2). The first step in m a n a g i n g these cultures is being able to identify a n d u n d e r s t a n d them.

National Culture At the m a c r o level, organizational leaders m u s t b e a w a r e of cultural differences across nations. C u s t o m s that seem n o r m a l a n d n a t u r a l in o n e nation m a y b e u n n a t u r a l a n d even offensive in another. C h a p t e r s 8 a n d 9 specifically speak to h o w organizational leaders s h o u l d recognize t h e

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Ύ 13 possibility of multiple cultures and h o w they can translate their organizational vision into multiple cultural contexts.

Regional, Industrial, and Professional Cultures At the next level are the regional, industrial, and professional cultures. Some organizations have a particular sense of identity and a special w a y of thinking that is specific to their geographical area. This is true in the case of businesses located in Silicon Valley, California. In this region, the values of innovation and diligence thrive in a w a y unparalleled in the rest of the country, and this has caused the area to b o o m with knowledge-intensive, cutting-edge companies. Certain industries (e.g., auto industry) and professions (e.g., doctors, lawyers, public relations practitioners) also have distinct cultures that may be similar to or different from a particular organizational culture. For instance, the agriculture industry has different values from the auto industry. Likewise, most doctors tend to keep the Hippocratic oath as a first priority, whereas lawyers are socialized to value the client/lawyer privilege.

Corporate Culture The next level of organizational culture, that of the corporation or business itself, is the one most questioned and analyzed. Using a culture approach, organizations are viewed metaphorically as "clans/' "tribes," or "living organisms." Although a certain organization m a y have several overall values (such as "total quality") that run throughout the company, most of the time subcultures exist throughout the organization.

Subcultures: Hierarchical Levels, Departments, Social Groups Subcultures can be found hierarchically and departmentally. The values that characterize the thinking of upper management may be very different from those that characterize the assembly line workers. For instance, automobile company management may have cost cutting at the top of its list of values, whereas assembly line workers m a y have the value of "a fair day's w a g e for a fair day's work" as their first priority. Likewise, values vary in each department. Engineers tend to have different priorities and values from accountants, salespeople, and machine

14

Ύ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

operators, for example. In addition, "social" subcultures cross over hierarchical and departmental lines. This is true, for instance, w h e n a certain configuration of employees all play on the organization's softball team or attend the same church. Because every organization is filled with subcultures, it is naive and erroneous for top management to assume that its culture (which includes its values and priorities) automatically permeates or e v e n "trickles down" to other parts of the organization. This is w h y communication, whether through visioning (Chapter 3), framing (Chapter 4), or dialogue (Chapter 5), is vital to shaping and modifying a strong corporate culture. It is through communication that managers can shape and modify organizational culture.

Exercise

1.3

• The culture of an organization is encoded in the internal values and external behaviors that give form to everyday experience. Think about an organization with which you are familiar. How would you describe its culture? •

Identify subcultures in this organization. How are they differentiated? Are they in conflict or harmony? What impact do these subcultures have on shaping the organization? What functions do these groupings serve for their members? Is their overall effect on the organization positive or negative?

• How is culture communicated through this organization formally and informally?

Culture in the Contemporary Workplace Culture performs a number of very important functions in most contemporary workplaces. Understanding the w a y culture influences the workplace helps show the importance of it and provides some insight into w h e n development and change are necessary. Following Vijay Sathe's (1985) work, coordination, decision making, control, motivation and commitment, and justification will be considered.

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

Τ

15

Coordination Decentralized decision m a k i n g , increased u s e of cross-functional teams, a n d professionals w o r k i n g at r e m o t e sites m a k e surveillance of the w o r k effort a n d coordination of decisions very difficult. Shared valu e s can p r o v i d e coordination a n d invisible m a n a g e m e n t . With a strong c u l t u r e , i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s w i t h little direct contact can m a k e passively-coordinated decisions because their decisions are m a d e u s i n g the s a m e premises a n d values. U p p e r m a n a g e m e n t does n o t h a v e to anticipate all contingencies if similar u n d e r l y i n g values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s g u i d e the decisions of diverse g r o u p s . Furthermore, strong cultures t e n d to generate identification w i t h the organization a n d greater trust of other g r o u p s a n d m e m b e r s . This in t u r n increases the a m o u n t a n d clarity of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d aids coordination.

Decision Making Basic a s s u m p t i o n s a n d values enter into decision m a k i n g in a variety of w a y s . Business decisions are nearly always m a d e u n d e r conditions of great uncertainty. Information is often incomplete a n d changes in envir o n m e n t s are n o t always k n o w a b l e . Values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s fill in the g a p b e t w e e n w h a t o n e k n o w s a n d the n e e d for a decision now. Values are deeply involved in decision m a k i n g even w h e r e uncertainty is less. Basic questions of w h a t s h o u l d b e p r o d u c e d , w h a t risks are to b e ass u m e d , a n d h o w a p r o b l e m s h o u l d b e h a n d l e d are n o t a n s w e r e d b y k n o w i n g m o r e b u t are b a s e d o n preferences a n d values. In m o s t cases organizations d e v e l o p rather routine decisional premises that are d e e p l y e m b e d d e d in culture-based activities that i m p l e m e n t these values a n d preferences in a n invisible way. Culture matters.

Control Workplaces t o d a y suffer from b o t h too m u c h control, w h i c h stifles creativity, innovation, a n d shared responsibility, a n d too little control, w h i c h m a k e s coordination a n d direction difficult. C u l t u r e can b e responsible for both. S o m e workplaces h a v e experienced a crisis of control in p a r t o w i n g to the decline in the strength of external cultures. For m o s t of the 20th cen-

16 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

tury, w o r k relations h a v e a s s u m e d a stable a n d consensual set of values a n d m o r a l s t a n d a r d s given b y the w i d e r society. Traditionally in the Western w o r l d , the so-called Protestant w o r k ethic p r o v i d e d a n i m p o r t a n t extra-organizational motivational form. Basic s t a n d a r d s of h a r d w o r k , honesty, belief in quality a n d s t a n d a r d s , a n d accurate reporting p r o v i d e d a v o l u n t a r y conformity to social practices. T h e general expectation a n d s u p p o r t of these h a s declined in c o n t e m p o r a r y society. Certainly w o r k processes a n d corporate effects o n other institutions h a v e b e e n partially responsible for this decline in w o r k e r s ' as well as m a n a g ers' a n d o w n e r s ' c o m m i t m e n t to shared values. C o r p o r a t e culture can p r o v i d e values a n d direction in the face of the changing a n d often w e a k ening external culture. Traditional forms of control are often structurally limited in m o d e r n workplaces. Surveillance is often difficult, responsibility is h a r d to fix, a n d the costs of m e m b e r disruptions a n d even sabotage are great in m a n y industries. I n a p p r o p r i a t e activities, resistance, a n d rule violation can create p r o b l e m s , since corporations h a v e generally relied o n v o l u n t a r y c o m pliance w i t h rules a n d internal regulations. With sophisticated e q u i p ment, c o m m o n data b a n k s , a n d highly coordinated processes, these acts are considerably m o r e costly a n d h a r d e r to b l a m e o n s o m e o n e . A l t h o u g h increased m o n i t o r i n g is likely in m a n y c o r p o r a t i o n s , surveillance is costly in itself a n d often fosters an e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e increased d i s r u p tion is likely. Control from a strong culture a n d resultant acts of selfsurveillance are obviously a solution preferred b y m o s t m a n a g e m e n t groups. C u l t u r e provides powerful a n d often invisible control. For this reason it is v a l u e d in workplaces today. But as will b e discussed, it can also r e d u c e creativity, i n n o v a t i o n , a n d a d a p t a b i l i t y precisely b e c a u s e of p o w e r a n d invisibility. In addition, m a n a g e r s n e e d to distinguish b e t w e e n cultural control a n d b r a i n w a s h i n g . A l t h o u g h leaders can d o m u c h to inculcate their values in employees, they m u s t also allow for feedback a n d dialogue, issues that are dealt w i t h m o r e specifically in the later chapter o n ethics.

Motivation and Commitment Explicit systems of r e w a r d s a n d sanctions are difficult to administer in the m o d e r n organization, especially w i t h team processes a n d highly integrated activities. The supervisor frequently lacks the "trade-relevant

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls W 17 knowledge" necessary to assess the employee's effort. Sanctions in most day-to-day operations are difficult to assign, often have negative side effects, and usually end u p appearing capricious. Rewards in even the more obvious cases of sales commissions are often complicated b y the effects of support staffs, engineers, and others traditionally outside of the sales process. Monitoring the amount and quality of work in the service industries becomes increasingly difficult. A n d supervisors often lack the authority to reward meaningfully except in unusual cases. A positive corporate culture reduces the need for the type of motivation and direction thought to be gained from supervision and reward and punishment systems. A positive culture increases self-management and increases the commitment and motivations arising from the individuals and teams themselves. When a person feels emotional attachment to and identifies with the business, he or she feels greater commitment and is more motivated. A committed employee is more likely to base choices on the perceived good of the company and find w a y s to accomplish personal objectives within the parameters of the overall business objectives.

Justification Complexity, distant financial imperatives (and manipulations), white-collar layoffs, and changing attitudes to authority challenge the felt legitimacy of the company and upper management. After a couple of decades of leveraged buyouts, reorganizations, reengineering, mergers, and downsizing/rightsizing/upsizing, many employees are quite cynical. The sense of trust that came with the assumed contract of lifetime employment and the confidence that upper managers and owners had the best interests of the company rather than themselves in mind has largely disappeared. Traditional figures of authority have been questioned and even ridiculed. Authority has lost its mystique and is more clearly seen as arbitrary. It is difficult for the large corporation to mimic the characteristic of the family firm and thus to achieve the loyalty and personal identification frequently attributed to it. The lack of personal contact places greater demands on reason giving and explicit justifications, but these become increasingly abstract and hidden from view. Decentralization, w i d e spread decisional participation, and explicit cultural management are necessary to reclaim legitimacy in most businesses.

18

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Character and Strength of Culture C o r p o r a t e cultures differ in b o t h their character a n d their strength. Both h a v e significant influence o n workplace performance a n d o n c h a n g e efforts. Character of culture refers to the specific values, beliefs, a n d activities that c o m p o s e a culture. Strength of culture refers to the a m o u n t of overlapping s u p p o r t a n d sites p r o v i d i n g repetition of d o m i n a n t cultural elem e n t s as well as the intensity of m e m b e r identifications w i t h the culture. The character of the culture provides the direction of cultural i m p a c t a n d the strength of the culture provides its force.

Character of Culture M a n y of the "sites" of culture influence the particular culture of an organization. The founders of the organization carry in cultural elements as they initially structure, hire, a n d m a n a g e the company. They b r i n g in a pattern of values, assumptions, a n d practices they h a v e d r a w n from their o w n experiences a n d their national, regional, ethnic, religious, occupational, a n d professional communities. Employees m a y be selected w h o fit well in the f o u n d e r ' s life world, b u t inevitably they b r i n g v a r y i n g cultural orientations from their o w n experiences a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . Dep e n d i n g on the relative strength of the founders a n d the various external communities, a culture emerges as an a m a l g a m a t i o n of different p r o p o r tions or cultural forces. Part of the business m a y differ in w h a t emerges b a s e d o n the relative identification with the founder a n d the strength of occupations a n d professional groups. Business experience also influences the culture. Periods of nationalism or specific events in the history of the c o m p a n y can c h a n g e the relative strength of different influential elements. C o r p o r a t e cultures, a l t h o u g h relatively stable, are influenced b y organizational learning, training p r o g r a m s , a n d environmental events. Bell Laboratories, for exa m p l e , has m a i n t a i n e d m a n y features b u t still is a very different place today from a couple of decades ago. In the past 20 years Bell Labs h a s changed from a university-like research center in a regulated monopoly, to a market-driven R&D operation in AT&T after divestiture, to an innovative technology c o m p a n y as Lucent Technologies. M u c h efforts a n d resources h a v e been p u t into these changes a n d m a n y e m p l o y e e s h a v e left w h o w o u l d not or could not adapt to the n e w culture. But change happens.

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Τ 19 M a n y researchers h a v e d e v e l o p e d typologies to describe differences in cultural character. Each of these d r a w attention to the particular cultural differences that m a k e a difference. Focusing o n character differences helps m a t c h particular cultural characteristics to specific business n e e d s , aids the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of cultural clashes, a n d directs activities in change efforts. Geert H o f s t e d e a n d h i s associates (Hofstede, Neuijen, O h a y v , & Sanders, 1990) h a v e c o n d u c t e d extensive studies of cultures in different countries. They suggest that it is meaningful to account for differences b a s e d o n differences in conventions, customs, habits, a n d m o r e s . They identified the following six d i m e n s i o n s of difference: 1. Process-oriented versus results-oriented 2. Employee-oriented versus job-oriented 3. Parochial versus professional (do employees identify primarily with their own company or their own professions) 4. Open versus closed systems of communication 5. Loose versus tight (bureaucratic) control 6. Normative versus pragmatic (presses own view of the world versus responsive to customers) (p. 303) Sue C a r t w r i g h t a n d C a r y C o o p e r (1992), considering this a n d other studies, describe four prototypical cultures. These will b e u s e d later in looking at the likely consequences of mergers a n d other changes that b r i n g different cultures into contact. Power Cultures. P o w e r cultures are usually found in organizations w h e r e p o w e r is centralized in a few individuals, often founders or others central to d e v e l o p i n g the organization. Usually, these h a v e easily identified leaders w h o like to m a k e quick dramatic changes, often b a s e d in intuition. Such cultures thrive o n personal loyalty to leaders, w i t h rew a r d a n d p u n i s h m e n t structures often reflecting favoritism a n d perceived loyalties. Tradition is usually visibly present. E m p l o y e e s m a y feel p e r s o n a l c o m m i t m e n t a n d loyalty b u t also d i s e m p o w e r e d , a n d they often experience low m o r a l e a n d lack o w n e r s h i p of decisions. Role Cultures. Role cultures are usually fairly bureaucratic a n d e m phasize logic, rationality, a n d the achievement of efficiency. Policy m a n u -

20

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

als are important and often fairly thick. One's role becomes one's principal source of identity. Individuals tend to become very status conscious with much open competition between organizational units. Employees frequently feel relatively secure in such cultures but lack innovation and risk taking. Such cultures are especially resistant to change and often d o not adapt well to n e w environmental conditions. Task or Achievement Cultures. Task or achievement cultures are characterized by flexibility and high levels of employee autonomy. They tend to lack strong formal structures. Team decision making is prized. The task becomes the primary organizing feature. Control and coordination tend to be ad hoc, aiding innovation but also creating difficulties of a c o m m o n response, especially in times of crises. Person/Support Cultures. Person/support cultures tend to be egalitarian. The personal growth and development of the individual is treated as equally important as business objectives. These cultures tend to be long term in focus, expecting to realize the human investment over a long period of time. Decision making tends to be collective and based on multiple needs of people and business.

Exercise

1.4

Complete the Sample Culture Assessment Test at the end of the chapter (Appendix 1.1).

Strength of Culture The stronger the culture, the more impact it can have on employee commitment and performance and on corporate decisions. This can be both good and bad. A strong culture appropriate to the business mission and in tune with current environmental conditions can greatly enhance the company's performance and employee well-being. But in other circumstances, a strong culture can hamper performance and be quite resistant to criange.

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Ύ

21

The strength of a culture is d e t e r m i n e d b y several factors. First is the d e g r e e of redundancy. R e d u n d a n c y is the n u m b e r of different s y s t e m s i m p a c t i n g o n organizational m e m b e r s that share cultural characteristics. If c o m p a n y values are consistent w i t h national a n d c o m m u n i t y v a l u e s a n d w i t h different levels in the organization a n d across the industry, the strength of the culture is increased. If the v a r i o u s systems are contradictory, the strength is r e d u c e d . S e c o n d , t h e d e g r e e of i n t e g r a t i o n increases s t r e n g t h . C u l t u r a l strength is increased w h e n c o m p a n y values are carefully integrated w i t h d e e p l y h e l d values of e m p l o y e e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , cultural strength is increased w h e n p a y systems, e m p l o y e e relations, a n d e s p o u s e d v a l u e s are consistent. Both r e d u n d a n c y a n d integration m a k e c o m p a n y values a n d p r a c tices m o r e t h o r o u g h l y internalized b y all organizational m e m b e r s a n d m o r e likely o w n e d b y m e m b e r s . Weak cultures are m o r e likely to b e seen as arbitrary or contrived a n d m a y evoke compliance b u t less c o m m i t ment.

Exercise •

1.5

Discuss the strength of the culture in an organization with which you are familiar.

* Would a stronger or weaker culture better meet organizational goals? Member goals?

•

Culture and Fundamental Assumptions

C u l t u r e is n o t like taste, fashion, or opinion. C u l t u r e involves the m o s t basic a s s u m p t i o n s p e o p l e m a k e a b o u t the n a t u r e of their w o r l d a n d the p e o p l e in it. It includes their m o s t basic ideas of w h a t is p r o p e r a n d m o r a l . To m e s s w i t h these things is n o t just to c h a n g e a p e r s o n ' s a t t i t u d e at w o r k , it i m p a c t s o n the sensefulness of the w o r l d — w h a t is fair, h o w things s h o u l d w o r k . O n e of the reasons culture m a n a g e m e n t is so p o w erful is because i n d i v i d u a l attitudes a n d ideologies often o p e r a t e b e y o n d

22

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

conscious awareness. Because m o s t people u n d e r s t a n d their a s s u m p tions to b e n o r m a l , natural, a n d right, they d o little to question their basic beliefs—something that can h a v e b o t h positive a n d negative implications. Schein (1992) details the types of deeply held a s s u m p t i o n s p e o p l e h o l d a b o u t reality, time, space, h u m a n n a t u r e , a n d h u m a n relationships.

Assumptions About Reality People differ in their views on reality a n d w h a t is morally right. Alt h o u g h s o m e p e o p l e b e h a v e in w a y s that respect the spiritual or religious w o r l d as "real," others d o not. People also differ in w h a t they believe a certain concept or idea " c o u n t s " as (e.g., w h a t is interpreted as war, u n ethical behavior, or success?). A l t h o u g h s o m e p e o p l e require significant a m o u n t s of d a t a to p r o v e an a r g u m e n t , others are h a p p y to believe in a concept b a s e d on one p e r s o n ' s testimony. Some a s s u m e that decisions s h o u l d b e based o n universal rules, whereas others e s p o u s e a m o r e experiential ethic.

Assumptions About Time Like a s s u m p t i o n s about reality, a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t time often only surface w h e n p e o p l e ' s a s s u m p t i o n s clash. For instance, p e o p l e differ o n w h a t they consider to b e " o n time," "time w a s t e d , " " e n o u g h time to p l a n a h e a d , " "too m u c h w o r k in too little time," or a p r o p e r "learning c u r v e time." Cultures also differ o n w h e t h e r they focus o n past mistakes, p r e sent "to d o " lists, or future goals. A s s u m p t i o n s can differ in regard to linearity of time. Whereas s o m e people insist on d o i n g " o n e thing at a time," others juggle multiple projects simultaneously. Frustration can e r u p t w h e n these t w o types of people come into contact w i t h each other (e.g., consider the last time y o u w e r e waiting "forever" for a doctor b e cause y o u d i d n o t realize she or h e w a s seeing three patients at a time).

Assumptions About Space Use of space tells u s a lot about people's relationships a n d their status level. People m a k e a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t intimacy b a s e d o n h o w close s o m e o n e s t a n d s to another person. Like all a s s u m p t i o n s , t h o u g h , n o single definition of p r o p e r personal space h o l d s true across cultures, a n d confusion or irritation can occur w h e n p e o p l e w i t h different a s s u m p -

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls Ψ 23 tions meet. What it means to "intrude" can also change across cultures. Whereas in the United States it is generally fine to stand in a person's line of view, in other cultures this w o u l d be considered to be as forceful as a verbal interruption. Last, space indicates status. Generally, large corner offices with big w i n d o w s and closed doors indicate high status. When this rule is "broken" it is very symbolic. Such is the case at a company Schein (1992) calls "Action," where secretaries are given the prime w i n d o w offices. This decision about office space strongly symbolizes the w a y the company values and appreciates the important, but often monotonous, work its secretaries must perform.

Assumptions About Human Nature Assumptions about human nature can have a tremendous effect on the w a y s people work and lead in organizations. Douglas McGregor (1960) labeled two distinct orientations as "Theory X" and "Theory Y." People w h o lead by Theory X believe workers d o not really enjoy work, are only motivated by financial rewards, have little initiative, and thus must be tightly supervised. Leaders w h o operate under a Theory Y point of view, on the other hand, believe that workers generally enjoy work, are motivated by a variety of needs, desire autonomy and creativity, and thus do not require close supervision. People also differ in their beliefs about human agency. Some people believe they have control over their environment and organizational world, whereas others believe humans to be victims or products of societal and organizational structures. The particular framework a person operates under can greatly effect day-to-day operations of an organization, such as the types of work incentives given and the amount of participatory decision making encouraged.

Assumptions About Human

Relationships

People differ in their assumptions about h o w people should behave in groups. In Western societies, there is an emphasis on individual achievement, originality, and competition. Most Asian cultures, on the other hand, focus on group unity, family pride, and societal cooperation. When these cultures come together, there can be problems. These as-

24

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

s u m p t i o n s affect the structure of organizational hierarchies, division of duties, a n d compensation. Together, the above assumptions about reality, time, space, h u m a n nature, and h u m a n relationships m a k e u p rules of interaction—determining w h a t counts as "right" a n d " a p p r o p r i a t e . " O n e of the reasons such ass u m p t i o n s are so powerful is because they are d e e p l y held a n d often b e y o n d conscious recognition. Nevertheless, these basic beliefs frame the w a y s that people go about their lives. They c o m e to the surface often only w h e n they clash with the a s s u m p t i o n s of others. This is one reason w h y it is so i m p o r t a n t that a culture k n o w itself before it decides to change or m e r g e w i t h another culture. Cultural a s s u m p t i o n s are strongly held b y m o s t people. Before the change process is considered in the next chapter, y o u m a y w i s h to consider m o m e n t s w h e n y o u r o w n view of h o w things w o r k or w h a t is right a n d fair were challenged. Consider the death of a y o u n g p a r e n t or child, y o u r feelings about the justice system after the OJ verdict or a divorce settlement, the first time you were offered d o g or cat to eat, the p r o m o tion given for political reasons w h e n y o u were m o r e qualified, times w h e n children shoot children at school. If y o u can think of such situations, it is easier to u n d e r s t a n d the horror a n d disbelief w h e n culture change is a t t e m p t e d a n d the accompanying sense that the g o d s m u s t b e crazy.

Exercise

1.6

* Describe your personal beliefs about people and the way they are motivated to work. * Imagine that you were caught in a Jim Carrey liar sequence with a new employee where you always told the truth. What would you say? * Describe the real rules of life as you see them in most companies.

Review Questions What role does culture play in the development of a business strategy? Why did the culture approach emerge?

Managing Hearts, Minds, and Souls

Τ

25

Ψ What are the advantages of a strong culture? V How could a strong culture be limiting? V

What culture sites or levels make up a culture?

•

What actions can managers take in communicating culture?

•

What are some of the basic assumptions that make up people's value structures?

Discussion Questions •

What do you consider to be the virtues and problems of managing by "hearts, minds, and souls"?

Τ

Do you think that workplace coordination and control are more difficult today? If so, where and when? What evidence do you have?

V Why do deeply held assumptions about reality, time, space, human nature, and human relationships usually only come to the surface when they clash with another's assumptions? What are some instances when you have become aware of your own deeply held assumptions?

^

References and Recommended Readings

Barley, S., Meyer, G., & Gash, D. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33,24-60. Bern, D. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1992). Mergers and acquisitions: The human factor. Oxford, UK: Butterworth, Heinemann. Clemens, J. (1986, October 13). A lesson from 431 B.C. Fortune, p p . 161,164. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. N e w York: Basic Books. Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 28,359-376. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,286-316. Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kunda, G., & Barley, S. (1988, August). Designing devotion: Corporate cultures and ideologies of workplace control. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco. Lao Tzu. (1963). The way of Lao Tzu (Wing-Tsit, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original w o r k published 4th or 6th century B.C.) McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. N e w York: McGraw-Hill.

26

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pacanowsky, M., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational cultures. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46,115-130. Peters, T , & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. N e w York: Harper & Row. Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. H o m e w o o d , IL: Richard D. Irwin. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smircich, L., & C a l i s , M. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (eds.). Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 228-263). N e w b u r y Park, CA: Sage.

Appendix 1.1

Sample Culture Assessment Test

Consider the following items. Choose the one response that most applies to your organization: 1. In this organization individuals are expected to give first priority to: A. Meeting the challenge of the individual task in which they are engaged. B. Co-operating with and attending to the needs of their fellow workers. C. Following the instructions of their superiors. D. Acting within the parameters of their job description. 2. The organization responds to its members as if they are: A. Associates or colleagues. B. Family or friends. C. Hired help. D. Contracted employees. 3. In this organization people are motivated and influenced most by: A. Their own commitment to the task. B. The respect and commitment that they have for their co-workers. C. The prospects of rewards or fear of punishment. D. The company policy or rule book. 4. A "good" employee is considered to be one who: A. Is self-motivated and willing to take risks and be innovative if the task demands it. B. Gets along well with other and is interested in their self-development. C. Always does what his/her boss tells him/her to do without question. D. Can be relied upon to stick to the company rules. 5. Relationships between work units or inter-departmentally are generally: A. Cooperative. B. Friendly. C. Competitive. D. Indifferent. 27

28 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

6. In this organization decisions tend to be: A. Made by the people on the spot who are close to the problem and have the appropriate task expertise. B. Made after considerable discussion and with the consensus of all those involved, regardless of their organizational hierarchy. C. Referred up the line to the person who has the most formal authority. D. Made by resort to established precedents. 7. It is most important for a new member of this organization to learn: A. To use his/her initiative to get the task completed. B. How to get on with his/her fellow workers. C. Who really counts in this organization and be aware of the political coalitions. D. The formal rules and regulations. 8. The dominant managerial style of this organization is: A. Democratic and open. B. Supportive and responsive to individual needs and idiosyncrasies. C. Authoritarian. D. Impersonal and remote. If y o u scored mostly A's the d o m i n a n t culture of y o u r organization (as y o u perceive it) is " t a s k / a c h i e v e m e n t " ; mostly B's then " p e r s o n / s u p p o r t " ; mostly C s then " p o w e r " ; mostly D's then "role."

SOURCE: Cartwright and Cooper (1992, pp. 66-68). NOTE: Reprinted by permission of Butterworth Heinmann Publishers, a division of Reed Educational & Professional Publishing Ltd.

2 • Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture

Overview Although most cultures are fairly deeply held and resistant to change, with careful attention cultures can and do change. This change can take many forms. A culture can be accentuated and its strength increased, it may be incrementally changed over rather lengthy periods of time, or it may be radically transformed usually over shorter periods of time. Each of these types of changes requires progressively more focused attention by organizational leaders or significant environmental changes—and often b o t h — for transformational changes to occur. Like any change in business strategy, cultural change can, and should, only be attempted with a clear plan and clear objectives. Before initiating a change process the organizational leader should be clear as to what the character of the existing culture is and what functions the existing culture performs. This requires careful assessment. This chapter explores the reasons for initiating cultural change, the process of conducting an assessment of the culture, and the general features of change processes related to organizational cultures. 29

30

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Key Objectives of the Chapter Ψ

To identify situations where initiating a cultural change would be valuable

Τ

To be able to perform a cultural assessment identifying the key characteristics of an existing culture and the need for a change

Ψ

To identify the arguments that convince particular others that a change is essential

Ψ

To recognize the primary sources of resistance to change

Τ

To develop a change process through intervention in each of the places where culture is reproduced

Τ

To produce an eight-step change plan

Questions to Consider Τ

Have you ever been involved in an organizational change effort? How did you feel? How did you respond? How did others respond? What might account for the differences in response you saw?

Τ

What kinds of things could happen to an organization that would lead to a cultural change effort?

Ψ

Based on your own organizational experiences, to what extent do things have to change for management to want to give up its customary way of doing things?

¥

What kind of organizational changes might lead people to quit their organization?

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture

^

Τ

31

Reasons for Initiating Cultural Change Culture is an asset that can also be a liability. It is an asset because culture eases and economizes communications, facilitates organizational decision making and control, and may generate higher levels of cooperation and commitment in the organization. The result is efficiency, in that these activities are accomplished with a lower expenditure of resources, such as time and money, than would otherwise be possible. The stronger the culture the greater the efficiency. Culture becomes a liability when important shared beliefs and values interfere with the needs of the business and of the company and the people who work for it. To the extent that the character of a company's culture leads its people to think and act in inappropriate ways, culture's efficiency will not help achieve effective results. This condition is usually a significant liability because it is hard to change a culture's content. —Vtjay Sathe (1985, p. 25)

In the first chapter, several of the b r o a d e r economic a n d social trends b e h i n d the interest in organizational culture w e r e discussed. The positive aspects of assembling a business t h r o u g h b u i l d i n g the corporate culture leads to a n interest in g u i d i n g cultural changes. This section details motives for initiating cultural change.

Realizing the Competitive of a Strong Culture

Advantage

Possibly the m o s t i m p o r t a n t reason leaders h a v e t u r n e d to m a n a g i n g culture is that a distinctive a n d strong corporate culture can give o n e business a competitive a d v a n t a g e over another in the s a m e industry. High-performing c o m p a n i e s n e e d m o r e t h a n a c o m p e t e n t workforce. For a c o m p a n y to b e "excellent," it m u s t also h a v e a strong c o m p a n y spirit, a powerful corporate identity, a n d employees w h o h o l d a h i g h level of organizational c o m m i t m e n t a n d identification. This is especially true in service industries w h e r e the attitude of "frontline" p e r s o n n e l is the actual p r o d u c t being sold. To realize the competitive a d v a n t a g e of a strong culture, attention m u s t b e given to b o t h the strength a n d the character of the culture. Leaders p r o p e r l y w o r k to strengthen the culture w h e n they are h a p p y w i t h the character a n d they w i s h to increase the a d v a n t a g e s that c o m e w i t h increased c o m m i t m e n t a n d identification. C u l t u r e is profitable w h e n it can increase competitiveness, facilitate organizational decision

32

V

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

m a k i n g a n d control, a n d generate higher levels of cooperation a n d c o m m i t m e n t in the organization. Nevertheless, a strong culture can b e c o m e a limitation w h e n i m p o r t a n t shared beliefs a n d values interfere w i t h the goals of the organization or m e m b e r s a n d the direction it n e e d s to g o to stay competitive. W h e n a strong culture encourages p e o p l e to think a n d act in w a y s that are inappropriate or n o t conducive to g r o w t h , a strong culture can actually h u r t a n organization or even lead to unethical b e havior. Therefore, a strong culture m a y best b e t h o u g h t of as a balance b e t w e e n extremes. M a n a g e d effectively, a strong culture can lead to competitive a d v a n t a g e , b u t if the culture's character is w r o n g , a strong culture can lead to an organization's demise. The competitive a d v a n t a g e s of a strong culture often can only b e realized b y systematically w o r k i n g to change cultural character. This involves a t t e m p t s to align values, a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d c o m m o n practices w i t h business n e e d s a n d environmental a n d regulatory changes. This is m o r e difficult t h a n changing the strength of a culture b u t is frequently m u c h m o r e important.

Building Employee Commitment, and Esprit de Corps

Identification,

M a n a g i n g culture m a y b e m o s t i m p o r t a n t w h e n the c o m p a n y is experiencing difficulties w i t h coordinating or motivating employees. This is frequently the case after business reorganizations or extensive leadership changes. In these situations b o t h attitude a n d control p r o b l e m s m a y arise. A strong organizational culture can help redirect e m p l o y e e actions in a w a y that is less obtrusive a n d m o r e participative yet m o r e effective t h a n bureaucratic rules a n d regulations. A strong set of values a n d beliefs can b e m o r e effective in s h a p i n g behavior t h a n a long list of rules a n d regulations a n d direct supervisor intervention, especially w h e n leader legitimacy is a n issue. A strong corporate spirit—an esprit d e corps—plays a big p a r t in motivating employees to w o r k for collectively desired actions. W h e n e m p l o y e e s are highly committed to an organizational mission, they are m o r e likely to go forward w i t h actions that are consistent w i t h c o m p a n y goals, even w h e n these actions m a y n o t necessarily b e in line w i t h their i n d i v i d u a l or d e p a r t m e n t a l priorities. W h e n c o r p o r a t e p h i l o s o p h i e s saturate the organization in the form of a p e r v a d i n g culture, e m p l o y e e s tend to identify m o r e fully w i t h the organization, resulting in increased

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture

Y

33

commitment, organizational loyalty, and employee decisions that are in line with the organization's espoused mission. Employee buy-in seems especially important in certain situations. For instance, w h e n an organizational situation is complex and ambiguous, a set of c o m m o n values and beliefs is extremely important as a regulatory mechanism. Ouchi (1981) refers to this as "clan control" and explains that subtle values sometimes cannot be put into words. A c o m m o n understanding of organizational values among workers tends to prevent opportunistic behavior. This is especially true in our changing world of work w h e n it is sometimes impossible for managers to "look over the shoulder" of and directly observe and manage employees. Today, effective management cannot merely consist of giving orders; it must focus on creating a shared vision and a sense of direction to people working in a company. The next three chapters focus on h o w leaders can generate organizational identification and increase buy-in among their employees in w a y s that respect employee needs and insights.

Employee

Satisfaction

Employees are often more satisfied w h e n they work in a "strong culture" company. This is not surprising. Part of the definition of a strong culture is shared values. Employees are happier w h e n they feel as though they have a part in deciding and knowing corporate values and priorities. In addition, people have a natural inclination for wanting to belong to or identify with an organization. The opposite of identification is alienation. Without identification, employees are dead to the organization, a situation that leads to neither individual satisfaction nor organizational effectiveness. Although a high level of satisfaction is important to all companies, it is especially important in knowledge-intensive and high-performance organizations. In these businesses, both the risks and costs of employee exit are great. In many high-end businesses, a significant part of company assets "go d o w n the elevator every night." Such employees carry significant amounts of social and intellectual capital with them. Their organizational exit is often a competitor's gain. They often expect nontangible benefits from their place of work—such as stimulation, social relations, and excitement—that traditional manufacturing employees w o u l d have expected from their family and local communities.

34

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Cultural Integration The regular occurrences of mergers, acquisitions, a n d globalization efforts heighten the n e e d to assess cultural compatibility a n d to integrate organizations that m a y b e historically different. Toyota struggled a n d finally s u c c e e d e d in b r i n g i n g p a r t s of its a u t o m a n u f a c t u r i n g to the United States; the A T & T / N C R merger n e v e r quite s e e m e d to take; n o o n e k n o w s yet w h a t will h a p p e n w i t h Chrysler a n d Mercedes Benz or AT&T a n d TCI Cable. To m e r g e t w o or m o r e organizations, m o v e a d e p a r t m e n t from o n e p a r t of the w o r l d to another, or to acquire another organization, m a n a g e m e n t m u s t u n d e r s t a n d organizational culture. If the cultures of the t w o d e p a r t m e n t s or organizations are completely different or are in conflict w i t h one another, m a n a g e m e n t m a y n e e d to w a g e a n extensive culture c a m p a i g n or possibly rethink m e r g i n g or m o v i n g the g r o u p s in the first place. Organizations s h o u l d b e assessed as m o r e t h a n i n s t r u m e n t a l constructions a r o u n d business opportunities; they are flesh-and-blood entities m a d e u p of h u m a n s with distinct values a n d w a y s of working. D u e to rapid internationalization, interest in cross-cultural issues h a s increased dramatically. Some scholars argue a b o u t w h e t h e r the organizational culture or national culture is m o r e i m p o r t a n t w h e n m e r g i n g t w o or m o r e organizations. Usually, it is best to perceive the t w o cultures as informing a n d constituting each other. In s o m e situations, national culture is m o r e i m p o r t a n t to a n organizational decision, w h e r e a s in others, corporate culture h a s m o r e to d o w i t h a course of action. Issues such as these are treated in m o r e detail later.

Corporate Identity and Image A strong culture, infused w i t h expressive events a n d retold m y t h s a n d stories, can b e u s e d to m a r k e t the organization internally a n d externally. The cultural expression of corporate idiosyncrasies can b e c o m e key elements in the organization's identity a n d image. A s increasing n u m b e r s of m a r k e t i n g messages saturate the m e d i a a n d price w a r s b e come m o r e a n d m o r e c o m m o n , a c o m p a n y can profit from creating a distinctive niche for itself in the eyes of consumers. It is n o w o n d e r , then, that businesses r a n g i n g from video rental s h o p s a n d pizzerias to car w a s h e s a n d airlines h a v e created " c l u b " p r o g r a m s that invite "preferred c o n s u m e r s " to profit t h r o u g h returned business. W h e n a n organization

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture Τ

35

has a strong culture, customers are n o longer patrons; they are members, they are friends. For instance, the Body Shop has used its focus on social responsibility to create employee identification and consumer commitment. The company has created a niche for itself in the cosmetics industry that many others have tried, but failed, to duplicate. Through a strong culture, Microsoft has also portrayed an image—both internally and externally— that it is at the pinnacle of computer software innovation. This image has attracted top technologically minded knowledge workers as well as millions of consumers.

Exercise

2.1

Visualize what you would desire in a culture for an "ideal" organization. How would people feel about the company? How would they treat work? What values would be most central? How would management act in such an environment?

Evaluating a Particular Culture Many reasons exist for working to change a corporate culture. But change without careful assessment is usually misguided. Carefully examining an organization's culture provides a richer understanding of h o w organizations really work, uncovers the strengths and weaknesses, and shows where and w h y resistance to change is likely. On the basis of such assessment a clearer determination can be made regarding whether a cultural change is necessary.

Assessing the Nature of a Culture Assessing a culture is complex and difficult. Internalized beliefs, assumptions, and values cannot be easily observed or measured. Similar values and decisional premises embedded in c o m m o n routines and practices are difficult to infer in any simple way.

36 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Researchers h a v e developed m a n y m e t h o d s for deciphering culture. Most take significant lengths of time a n d are usually best d o n e b y trained o u t s i d e experts. Schein (1992) p r o v i d e s well the details of systematic analysis, including b o t h the type of c o m m i t m e n t n e e d e d in the c o m p a n y itself a n d the process of study. The analysis of culture requires m u l t i p l e m e t h o d s of s t u d y i n g the variety of w a y s culture is p r o d u c e d a n d reprod u c e d in organizational life. H e r e are a n u m b e r of elements of organizational life of interest in assessment: Employee feelings of involvement, identification, and commitment Vocabulary and metaphors used in discussing organizational events Stories, myths, legends Rites and rituals Routines of decision making and handling problems Types and processes of conflict Physical layout of the business Espoused values in company documents Company histories Socialization processes Strategies of justification Emotional expression and tone

In exploring these elements observers m u s t ask questions, m a k e observations, read d o c u m e n t s , a n d trust their g u t feelings. Initially, an observer m u s t try to u n d e r s t a n d the w o r l d as u n d e r s t o o d b y organizational m e m b e r s . But ultimately, the observer m u s t infer the m o r e deeply h e l d w a y s of seeing a n d thinking about the w o r l d a n d the values a n d a s s u m p tions u s e d in m a k i n g decisions a n d j u d g m e n t s in it. Only w i t h this t y p e of insight can change engage the m o r e fundamental aspect of culture a n d its impact in the organization. A n u m b e r of self-administered cultural analyses are also possible. Generally, the u n d e r s t a n d i n g gathered from these is n o t as rich b u t m a y still p r o v i d e useful insights. Repertory grids a n d focus g r o u p discussions h a v e b o t h b e e n u s e d w i t h s o m e success. P e r h a p s the easiest to administer a n d m o s t sensitive instrument is b a s e d o n the 20-statement test.

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture Τ 37 With this test organizational members are asked to anonymously write 20 statements completing the phrase, "My department (organization) i s . . . " Members are asked to write these as if they were writing to themselves and to put them in the order as they occur, not reflecting on importance. Q-sorts or other forms of theme analysis can be used to fairly quickly tap into basic shared perspectives. After that it is usually not too hard to infer basic values and assumptions (see Locatelli & West, 1996).

Exercise

2.2

Complete a 20-statement test for your own culture. Identify three themes that characterize the culture (themes that would sum it up for an outsider). What are the everyday life events, structures, stories, and activities that you would use as evidence for the descriptive statements you made?

Determining That a Cultural Change Is Needed Many types of cultural changes may be desired. Generally, these aim at changing either the character or the strength of the culture. Of the two, changing the strength requires much less effort. Character changes are much more difficult. Whenever possible a character change should be accomplished slowly through the gradual development of relationships between the existing culture and n e w perspectives and w a y s of thinking. In some cases a major transformation is desired. Usually, these are a result of a major transition in the organization or environmental or regulatory change. In these cases more attention must be given to d e m onstrating the need for change, justifications for interventions, and consequences for failing to change. Changing the Culture's Strength. The general corporate culture may be well aligned with business objectives but still not generate the type of intensity desired. In these cases the attempt needs to clarify the existing values and culturally based activities and work to extend them to n e w arenas and get more people to buy in more completely. This m a y require

38 •

LEADING ORGANIZAUONS THROUGH TRANSmON

intervention in nonsupportive subcultures and providing more activities that highlight and celebrate positive cultural elements. Recall, however, that strong cultures are not always positive, even w h e n they support business objectives. If innovation is important or the business environment is fairly turbulent, the weaker culture provides opportunity for planned diversity and the ability to foresee and respond to changes.

Changing the Culture's Character. Cultural character needs to be changed w h e n the dominant culture promotes behaviors that are inconsistent with business needs and member relations. Compliance with objectives may be very weak in such cases. The need to change the culture's character is most pressing w h e n other means of monitoring and directing behavior are especially costly or difficult. Since changing cultural character is difficult, careful evaluation of the existing culture is important. With creativity desired results often can be achieved by methods of behavioral change or through extension and adaptation of the existing culture. In the case of a major upheaval in the business environment, one must reasonably ask whether sufficient time is available for a transformation of the culture or whether less enduring but more rapid changes or temporary arrangements are possible.

^

Leading the Cultural Change

Intentional culture change efforts, like any change, begins with a strategy. The strategy reflects both a desired future state and a process for getting there. Generally, in today's complex business situations the desired future state of affairs has to be clear and compelling but sufficiently ambiguous and adaptable that the company can learn during the change process, seize emergent opportunities, and be ready to recognize that futures look different w h e n y o u get there. Positive direction can be given that still allows space for specific interpretations and employees adding their o w n meaning. This will be explored further w h e n vision statements are discussed. Here the attention will be directed to the process of change. Discussion includes the motivation for and resistance to cultural change, where

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture Y

39

leaders can intervene in normal cultural reproductive processes to create change, and steps to achieve a major cultural transformation.

Motivation for Cultural Change Motivation for change can be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both. Intrinsic motivation for change tends to be highest w h e n the present culture is weak and organizational members genuinely feel change is needed. U s u ally, people only feel the need for a change w h e n there is clear and undeniable evidence that organizational survival and people's chances for success are at stake. When the existing culture is strong, such a need must be established and felt within existing values and assumptions. This is difficult, since it is often those same values and perspectives that kept organizational members from perceiving the need earlier on. EstabUshing need is critical to internal motivation. With a weaker culture, mere demonstration of the advantage of a n e w w a y of approaching problems may be sufficient. External motivation m a y b e provided through a variety of traditional inducements. Reward systems can be developed that advantage n e w w a y s of handling organizational choices. Change in such systems often can have far more influence than espousing and justifying n e w values, especially if the values are advocated without tangible rewards for acceptance. Symbolic inducements can also be used, visibly providing acknowledgment and advantages to those more allegiant to the n e w cultural principles.

Resistance to Cultural Change Business leaders rarely anticipate the extent of the resistance to planned changes. One reason for this is that the leaders have had more time to think about the change and more fully understand the reasons for it. But equally important, leaders often have less to lose from it. It is their plan; they are protected in it. Employees, on the other hand, are often surprised, d o not understand the reasoning, did not participate in the choice, and see themselves as having much to lose. Overcoming these differences between leaders and other members is possible, as discussed below and in later chapters. Essentially, fuller communication, participation in choice and implementation, trust, and genuine protection reduce resistance.

40

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

Most leaders enter change efforts m o t i v a t e d a n d e v e n excited. The change is fresh a n d n e w for them, b u t m a n y employees h a v e a different experiential history. Often, they h a v e b e e n reorganized a n d d e v e l o p e d to death. They h a v e b e e n t h r o u g h every change effort imaginable. They are u n d e r s t a n d a b l y cynical. They k n o w m o s t are talk a n d are rarely carried t h r o u g h . Employees h e a r change as m o r e w o r k w i t h o u t m o r e p a y — w o r k that rarely m a k e s a difference, advocated b y p e o p l e w h o d o n o t k n o w w h a t their job requires. They h a v e d e v e l o p e d a system of shortcuts a n d s t a n d a r d expectations that h a v e given t h e m efficiency a n d a m e a s u r e of autonomy. At least temporarily, all that will go away. For a while the rules will b e u p for grabs. They h a v e learned to play along w i t h o u t m a k ing real change until the next m a n a g e m e n t initiative comes along a n d r e m o v e s the need. To a large extent, the leader h a s n o choice b u t to try to m a k e this change effort different, a claim all employees h a v e h e a r d before. In a sense, the leader h a s to really, really m e a n it this time (Can Lucy get Charlie Brown to try to kick the football one m o r e time?) a n d m a k e it real. Furthermore, m o s t resistance is unintentional. O l d habits a n d a u t o m a t i c r e s p o n s e s are h a r d to recognize a n d c h a n g e . T h e d e e p e r t h e changes, the m o r e likely they will enter realms of life invisible to e m p l o y ees. As w i t h riding a bicycle, one's early learnings n e v e r quite go away. Most p e o p l e carry a b o u t t h o u s a n d s of social recipes for h a n d l i n g routine life events. They h a v e u s e d these over a n d over again for m o s t of their lives. A n d m o s t h a v e w o r k e d reasonably well or they w o u l d h a v e g o n e a w a y s o m e time ago. W h e n w a y s of r e s p o n d i n g b e c o m e entrenched, even repeated failure rarely leads to change. M a n y p e o p l e a s s u m e if they just d o w h a t they usually d o only w i t h m o r e strength a n d tenacity they will succeed. O n l y focused attention can m a k e these automatic response patterns visible, let alone p r o v i d e a motivation to change. Finally, fear is a key element in m o s t resistance. S o m e fears are well f o u n d e d a n d s o m e are not. Most can b e r e d u c e d b y taking into account the sources of the fear a n d reducing the potential negative impact o n employees. The m o s t basic fear is the fear of the u n k n o w n . Employees reasonably ask w h a t the n e w culture will look like. Are they likely to b e able to succeed in it? H o w will the rules change? They fear failure. Even, or p e r h a p s especially, the m o s t successful can reasonably question w h e t h e r they will enjoy the s a m e levels of success. N e w cultures lead to the p o s -

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture ¥

41

sibility of embarrassment and awkwardness in learning and handling situations. A n d employees fear possible rejection by those still advancing the old culture and by those working in the new. These fears are exacerbated by a sense of the loss of control. One is not just entering the unknown, one is entering it as a changing person w h o does not k n o w fully h o w he or she will respond in the n e w situation or even what he or she will be. Fears can be reduced by providing time, protection, information, and personal control.

Exercise

23

During a family Thanksgiving dinner, o n e of us asked a cousin h o w things were going at work. The cousin replied with rolled eyes that t h e company's m a n a g e m e n t had started this n e w program. They w a n t e d t o e m p o w e r people and a lot more of the decisions would be m a d e in teams. Mostly, no o n e knew what they were doing and it w a s taking a lot of extra time. He w a s not sure w h a t they w a n t e d from him but knew that n e w systems of accountability were going t o be in place. He w a s doing a lot of guessing and felt that his skills were not being used well. Most people like him had assumed that personnel would b e cut along t h e way, and he just hoped t o ride this out until m a n a g e m e n t c a m e up with another n e w idea. * Why do you think that this new program was met with this type of reaction? * What might management have done to make this less likely? *

Have you ever felt like the cousin?

* What is the piece of this that the cousin seems to have missed? « What are the values the cousin appears to hold? How could these be brought into a relation to the new program? * What would you do now if you were a manager of this company and had overheard this story? * Recall a time when your unit was reorganized, you were asked to make a significant change in your way of working, or your job requirements were altered. What did you fear most in making the change? What most motivated you to stick with it? In what ways did you resist the change, if any? Why might others respond to similar events differently?

42

Y

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

& The Change Process Despite the difficulties of change, c h a n g e d o e s h a p p e n . C h a n g e is possible partly as a function of the n a t u r e of culture itself. C u l t u r e does n o t reside s o m e w h e r e like a balloon or building; it m u s t b e constantly reprod u c e d in t h e activities of p e o p l e . A s s h o w n earlier, c u l t u r e is b e t t e r t h o u g h t of as the reoccurrence of specific m e a n i n g s , personal identities, a n d activities t h a n as the cause of them. Culture is a n endless negotiation b y organizational m e m b e r s . Activities a n d interactions are p a r t of the d e v e l o p m e n t of shared interpretations a n d c o m m o n a s s u m p t i o n s .

Intervention in Cultural Reproductive

Processes

C u l t u r e is r e p r o d u c e d in a n u m b e r of organizational processes. These processes include at the m i n i m u m (a) hiring a n d n e w m e m b e r training; (b) the advocacy of values, principles, a n d visions a n d the telling of stories; (c) the justification of choices t h r o u g h reason giving, accounts, a n d explanations; (d) the physical artifacts, n a t u r e of the w o r k process a n d performance appraisals, a n d decisional routines; a n d , finally, (e) the systematic defection o r removal of employees from the unit or organization. Intervention is possible in each, or better all, of these processes. 1. Systematically hiring employees w h o already share the desired cultural qualities is often easier t h a n changing older employees. Such a choice s h o u l d b e d o n e w i t h care to ensure t h e a d e q u a t e diversity a n d variety necessary for innovation, organizational learning, a n d a d a p t a tion to a changing environment. Early socialization processes are often m o r e lasting t h a n later interventions. 2. C h a p t e r s 3 a n d 4 look m u c h m o r e closely at explicit "cultural comm u n i c a t i o n " t h r o u g h value advocacy, storytelling, a n d visions. Clearly, as s h o w n later, leaders m u s t " w a l k the talk," b u t they m u s t also clearly "talk the talk." 3. All reason giving, accounts, a n d justifications carry implicit values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s . D u r i n g n o r m a l processes of cultural reproduction, t h e values a n d a s s u m p t i o n remain invisible. Only occasionally will a n activity a p p e a r so lacking in sense that explicit questions of values a n d as-

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture Ύ

43

sumptions are raised. Such communicative acts may be rare, since the members fill in the reasoning on their own. A s cultures change, uncertainty and ambiguity increase. Questions like "What w a s meant b y that?" or "Why w a s that done?" become more common. A n d it is increasingly likely that organizational members will provide their o w n explanations that m a y b e quite different from those that organizational leaders desire. Activities and events needing explanation provide an excellent opportunity for leaders to direct member interpretive processes. 4. Culture is reproduced through the physical arrangements of offices and the innumerable w a y s that day-to-day work and decisions are handled. Values are more convincingly communicated through actions than through words. This is not to diminish the effective use of words. Actions are always subject to interpretations, words frame interpretations, and interpretations influence cultural reproductions. But creating clear behavioral objectives desired in the n e w culture and providing good measures for achievement are critical to the n e w culture's development. Try investigating standard practices everywhere to assess the w a y s they hinder or support the n e w culture. Culture will not change if reward systems and decision-making practices stay the same. 5. Inevitably, some employees cannot or do not wish to be part of a n e w culture. Old cultures disappear partly from the voluntary or encouraged departure of these employees. Cultural change is helped by systematic procedures for early retirement, transferring, or other means of removal.

Steps to Achieve a Major Transformation John Kotter (1995), a professor in the Harvard Business School and major contributor to understanding change processes, suggests an eightstep process to achieving a major transformation in a business. Most of these are relevant to more minor attempts to shape culture. Establish a Sense of Urgency. A s already indicated, internal motivation to change is based on a clear understanding of threatening external conditions or competitive advantage to be gained. Evidence for a crisis, potential crisis, or major opportunity must be presented clearly to the

44 Τ LEADING ORG ANIZAUONS THROUGH TRANSmON m e m b e r s w h o are asked to change or the aggressive cooperation necessary for change will n o t occur. Kotter (1995) estimates that over 50% of all change efforts fail because of the lack of felt urgency. The type of evidence necessary to b e convincing is heavily d e p e n d e n t on p a s t experiences of p e r s o n n e l a n d the existing culture. For example, m e m b e r s of a p a p e r c o m p a n y w h o are u s e d to w i d e m a r k e t fluctuations in p u l p p a p e r prices are n o t likely to b e m o t i vated b y a n extreme one-quarter loss. M a n y m a n a g e r s prefer to give orders rather t h a n collect a n d distribute evidence. They are n o t likely to lead change efforts. Urgency also suggests m o v i n g fast. C h a n g e s h o u l d b e initiated o n all fronts at the start w i t h phase-in coordinated in a timely fashion. Slow changes are n o t m o r e comfortable. They often allow resistance to consolidate a n d contradictions to exist in the company. Fast changes d o n o t m e a n that care cannot b e taken to u n d e r s t a n d fears a n d p r o v i d e m e a n ingful transitions. But these should b e anticipated a n d p l a n n e d for from the very outset. Response should not wait for actual presence of a problem. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition. C h a n g e processes of all sorts across different aspects of life are usually lead b y a cluster of early a d o p t e r s w h o b e c o m e critical p a r t s of the diffusion to others. Organizational c h a n g e is little different. It is n o t sufficient for u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t or the u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t t e a m a l o n e to s u p p o r t a c h a n g e . Early a d o p t e r s exist t h r o u g h o u t m o s t organizations. O t h e r s w a t c h t h e m for ideas a n d h o w they are treated. As T. J. a n d Sandar Larkin (1996) h a v e s h o w n convincingly, frontline supervisors are especially i m p o r t a n t to c h a n g e efforts. A change t e a m h a s to b e d e v e l o p e d that is sufficiently diverse, m o t i v a t e d a n d powerful to influence the variety of p e o p l e to b e effected in the change process. If the t e a m m e m b e r s can w o r k together, they can also learn from a n d give s u p p o r t to each other, especially d u r i n g the early m o n t h s . Retreats a n d other activities can aid this g r o u p in p r e p a r i n g for the opposition it eventually will face. Create a Guiding Vision. Plans a n d directives lack force unless accomp a n i e d b y a clear a n d easily u n d e r s t o o d vision. The urgency of change can create d u n i n i s h e d motivation a n d even exit b y key m e m b e r s if n o t m a t c h e d b y a compelling notion of w h a t can be. I m p o r t a n t qualities of visions are the focus of the next chapter.

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture ¥

45

Communicate the Vision. A vision without the voice of a prophet can neither inspire nor guide. Visions are often undercommunicated and commiinicated in an ineffective manner. Undercommunication usually occurs w h e n the vision remains a property of upper managers. They m a y be clear about where they are going, but the various instructions and directives they send out d o not carry the vision. These often make little sense and fail to inspire. The larger the change, the greater the need is to explain and demonstrate at every possible occasion. Poor communication occurs w h e n upper managers preach the values but d o little to get directly involved in the change effort. The negative effect is compounded w h e n management actually continues to operate in w a y s that contradict the n e w vision, "videos, email, publications, coffee cups, and large meetings rarely help. Communication should be face to face whenever possible. Presentations and publications should contain facts and analyses rather than slogans. Meetings should answer real questions rather than be used to spin the line. A vision needs to be written into the day-to-day interactions. Rewriting policy materials and appraisal processes presents a n e w vision much more clearly and honestly than posters. Furthermore, as discussed later, a presentation is not communication. Communication takes two—one to have meaning and send a message and another to hear it and decide what it means. People respond to the vision that they hear, not the one that w a s meant. A n upper manager's vision to increase customer satisfaction can be heard by the supervisor as another job to add on top of an already heavy workload and having to change several work processes to customize products for different customers. The heard vision is hardly inspirational. People reasonably ask, "What's in it for me?" A well-articulated vision must provide a w a y for employees to answer that positively. Generalized values and slogans rarely d o that. Empower Others to Act. Often managers try to overmanage change. They want to control everything. But change processes are very complex. N o one can orchestrate the process all the way. Furthermore, change requires an internal change by organizational members. Internal changes d o not happen b y people being told or required to comply. People must embrace such changes for themselves, make them their own. People model their changes on others they perceive to be similar to themselves. They must be enabled to make the vision over as their o w n within the

46

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

b r o a d p a r a m e t e r s for coordination. Get p e o p l e involved as soon as p o s sible. Trying things o u t that succeed p r o v i d e s e n c o u r a g e m e n t for further change. Once a positive process gets going, the m o s t that u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t can d o is simply n o t let things get in the way. This requires r e m o v i n g obstacles to change. Job categories a n d s t a n d a r d w o r k expectations often continue to u n d e r m i n e the vision. C h a n g i n g hearts, m i n d s , a n d souls cannot b e sustained w h e n p e o p l e are p u t back into the s a m e constraints. A p p r a i s a l a n d other systems or structures n e e d to b e c h a n g e d w h e n they w o r k against the vision. A n d finally, u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t h a s to encourage risk taking a n d r e m o v e penalties for failure in the short t e r m as n e w things are tried out. Create Small Wins Along the Way. Cultural change is a slow process even w h e n aggressively p u r s u e d . Initially, one m i g h t even expect lower m o r a l e a n d s o m e decline in p e r f o r m a n c e . Significant c h a n g e s , e v e n w h e n positive, d i s r u p t easy automatic processes. A s a n analogy, learning to dribble a basketball w i t h the left h a n d m a y b e frustrating for a righth a n d e d person, e v e n if h e or she k n o w s that n o serious player can play w i t h the right h a n d alone. A n i m p o r t a n t w a y to avoid frustration a n d loss of m o m e n t u m is to build in small w i n s that can b e shared a n d celebrated. Try to imagine a significant weight loss p r o g r a m or fitness p r o g r a m w i t h o u t reoccurring m e a s u r e m e n t s that s h o w progress that can b e shared w i t h others. Especially the guiding coalition will n e e d progress checks a n d m e a n s of celebrating accomplishment. Coalition m e m b e r s will n e e d it for themselves, a n d others will b e watching. Consolidate Improvements and Create More Change. Even t h e b e s t change effort g r o w s tiring after a couple of years. It is to b e h o p e d that s o m e success h a s b e e n achieved b y this time a n d p e o p l e h a v e other things to attend to. It is easy to think that the process is d o n e or can b e p u t on the back burner. This is usually a mistake. Resistance usually resides u n d e r the surface for s o m e time waiting for the o p p o r t u n i t y to return. M a n y in the c o m p a n y m a y still b e imitating the n e w w i t h o u t h a v i n g internalized it. It is a m a z i n g h o w quickly s o m e p e o p l e revert to old patterns the first time a crisis hits. A n d all changes gradually b e c o m e routinized in w a y s that obscure the vision. T h e p r o p h ets often b e c o m e priests. Ideally, a leader of a change effort can consoli-

Assessing and Changing Organizational Culture Τ 47 date small wins and use them as a basis to g o after even more entrenched structures and perspectives. Changes in process can truly b e c o m e changes in deeply held values, but that takes years. Institutionalize the New Culture. Without a grounding in everyday routines and members' value systems, all changes in attitudes and w a y s of talking will gradually pass away. Change efforts are often connected to charismatic leaders. When they leave, only firmly grounded changes will remain. A s conditions of urgency n o w seem at bay, motivation for continued improvement may wane. People continue to need to be s h o w n h o w the change really made the performance difference. A n d n e w managers need to be selected that will continue to champion the vision and the cultural changes needed.

Exercise

2.4

Recall your vision of a positive culture for an organization of which you are a part. Sketch how you would accomplish each of Kotter's (1995) eight steps.

Review Questions Τ

W h e n w o u l d an explicit cultural change process be most valuable?

Τ

What are s o m e of the things y o u w o u l d look at w h e n trying to determine the character of a particular culture?

Τ

What might y o u d o to enhance the strength of an organization's culture?

Τ

When might a strong culture be a problem?

W

What factors influence the internal motivation of organizational members to engage in a cultural change?

Ύ

W h y might employees fear and resist a cultural change effort?

Ψ

What are the sites of cultural reproduction? H o w can y o u intervene in each?

Τ

W h y is a sense of urgency important in initiating a cultural change process?

48 Ψ

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

If y o u were building a guiding coalition for the change effort, h o w w o u l d y o u induce or enroll members?

Τ

^ •

What is the best w a y to express the vision for change?

Discussion Questions In your organization, w h i c h organizational members h a v e b e e n most accepting of change? W h y d o y o u think they are different from others?

V

What are the leading forms of resistance to change in your organization? What types of m e s s a g e s w o u l d m o s t likely reduce the resistance?

V

What d o y o u think of Kotter's (1995) eight steps to change? From your experience, w h i c h h a v e been least followed?

Τ

W h e n a change process w a s attempted in an organization of w h i c h y o u w e r e a part, h o w successful w a s it? Where did it most succeed and most fail? What might y o u d o differently n o w ?

^

References and Recommended Readings

Kotter, J. R (1995, March-April). Leading change: W h y transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, p p . 59-67. Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1996, May-June). Reaching and changing frontline e m p l o y e e s . Harvard Business Review, pp. 95-104. Liedtka, J., & Rosenblum, J. (1996). Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change. California Management Review, 39,141-157. Locatelli, V , & West, M. (1996). O n elephants and blind researchers: Methods for assessing culture in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17,12-21. Nutt, R, & Backoff, R. (1997). Organizational transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6,235-254. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. H o m e w o o d , IL: Richard D . Irwin. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schoenberger, E. (1997). The cultural crisis of the firm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

3 τ Vision and Cultural Development Overview Developing and acting on a strong vision is vital to an organization. Vision is one of the key elements that distinguish a manager from a leader. To be effective, however, a vision statement must be collaboratively constructed and "owned" by members across organizational levels. Unless the vision is clearly communicated and integrated into organizational practices, it is likely to have little effect. N o matter how often strategic plans are revised and mission statements revisited, without a strong commitment to these guiding principles they cannot strengthen an organization. This chapter outlines what a vision is and shows how some of the world's premier organizations have turned a commitment to a strong vision into unparalleled success. To be useful, a vision statement must be integrated with the cultural value systems of the organization. The path toward vision achievement must be followed every day and enacted in routine interactions and communication. Vision helps build identification with the core purpose of the organization, and identification gives employees a sense of accomplishment in the work that they do, which in turn drives them to strive toward accomplishment of organizational and member objectives. A strong, shared vision is good for the organization at all levels. 49

50

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Key Objectives of the Chapter Ψ To explain the importance of a long-term vision •

To illustrate how to develop a powerful vision statement

Τ

To explore means of reinforcing culture and building employee identification

V To help in the building of shared visions Τ

To provide a rationale for involving organizational members in developing and implementing a shared vision

Questions to Consider •

Think of an organization of which you are a member. This may be a workplace or corporate organization, but might also be a student organization, religious group, sports team, or community service organization. Wherever people "organize" their activity through communication, organizational work is being done. Does this organization have a clearly articulated vision?

Τ

What are its core values?

V What is the value of the product or service that it produces or provides? Ψ

Are organizational members strongly identified with the organization? Why? Why not?

Τ

What can you do to ensure that the daily operations move the organization toward fulfillment of its vision?

Vision and Cultural Development

Ύ

51

Building a Vision Unless company objectives are in harmony with your [employee] objectives, unless our corporate way of life is compatible with the way you want to work and what you want to achieve, there is no way we can succeed, no chance to excel. But how do we make sure the goals of the corporation are consistent with the goals of our employees? How can we get everyone working together to push this company out front? The answer is simple. Start talking. Define the rules by which we will play the game. Start talking about our philosophy. Write it down, criticize it, change it if it needs changing. Then let it stand out there so we can be measured and challenged to make it even better. —Joseph D. Williams, CEO, Warner-Lambert (quoted by Hebert in Goodman [1998] p. 73)

Most organizations h a v e a mission statement that articulates the overall p u r p o s e that the organization w a s f o u n d e d to accomplish. Such a statem e n t is generally contained in the g o v e r n i n g d o c u m e n t s of the organization, s u c h as a constitution, b y l a w s , policy m a n u a l s , or e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k s . It m a y also b e c o m m u n i c a t e d informally t h r o u g h stories that articulate " w h a t w e are a b o u t here." A mission statement generally reflects w h a t the founders of the organization h o p e d to accomplish w h e n it w a s created. Similarly, m a n y corporate organizations s p e n d a great deal of t i m e a n d m o n e y o n meetings a i m e d at strategic planning. These sessions are frequently designed to identify w h a t the organization is currently d o i n g a n d w h a t are its strengths a n d weaknesses. A strategic p l a n generally outlines h o w the organization intends to fulfill its mission. A l t h o u g h each of these elements is related to the d e v e l o p m e n t of an organizational vision, they differ from each other. A mission tells y o u w h e r e the organization w a n t s to go; the strategic p l a n tells y o u h o w it intends to get there. A vision, however, helps y o u see the i m p o r t a n c e of getting w h e r e y o u w a n t to go a n d u n d e r s t a n d w h y s o m e p a t h s there are better suited to s o m e organizations than others. Since m o s t organizations perform a m u l t i t u d e of different tasks to arrive at their e n d goal or product, a vision can also serve a coordinating function. It can p r o v i d e a framework that allows organizational m e m bers to m a k e sense of the particular tasks that they are responsible for performing in the context of the larger p u r p o s e of the organization. In this w a y the vision h e l p s contextualize the p u r p o s e of everything that

52 Ψ LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION gets done in an organization. The vision inspires, motivates, and creates a sense of purpose that organizational members can buy into. In short, a g o o d vision is realistic enough to create a recognizable picture of the future, powerful enough to generate commitment to performance, coherent enough to provide coordination, and open enough that others can make it over into their own. If this is done the vision can inspire and motivate, provide direction, and enable benchmarking of progress toward the future.

Exercise •

3.1

Richard Allen (1995) suggested a vision is formed by asking basic questions. Address each of these in relationship to an organization that you belong to: - What is our purpose? - What is our driving force? ~ What are our core values? - What do we do best? - What do we want to accomplish? What do w e want to change?

« Articulate your vision for your organization. Is the current culture conducive to achieving it? •

How might others' visions for the organization differ?

Why a Long-Term Vision? A vision is always just out of reach. It gives organizational members something to strive for. As such, a clear vision statement must be future focused. By developing a clear sense of where y o u want to go, y o u m o v e the organization beyond immediate preoccupations with product design, time to market, and even staying ahead of the competition. By focusing d o w n the road, day-to-day challenges can be addressed in the context of whether they m o v e the organization toward its goal.

Vision and Cultural Development

Ψ

53

Organizations that set the standard by which others measure themselves d o so by focusing more on where they want to go than on where their competition is going. This is not to say that an awareness of current circumstances or markets is not important. What this does mean, though, is that as long as your goal is to stay ahead of the pack, y o u are only measuring yourself against that pack. Companies that follow those principles m a y be successful. They m a y e v e n make a great deal of money. They are unlikely to be trendsetters, however. There is a g o o d reason that CEOs like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Sam Walton, and even Walt Disney were considered visionary. Gates still runs Microsoft with the goal of "putting a computer on every desk, and in every home, all running Microsoft software" (quoted in Lewis, 1997, p. 10). This vision says little about h o w day-to-day operations are conducted, but this guiding principle is part of what helps determine h o w changing market conditions are responded to. When an organization has a clear sense of purpose and k n o w s where it wants to go, that gives meaning to what happens day in and day out and helps avoid c o m m o n "process-improvement" pitfalls. Total quality management (TQM), quality circles, teaming, and benchmarking, among countless other trendy activities for organizational improvement, will repeatedly fall short of their goal, as long as process is examined devoid of context. A strong long-term vision gives cohesion to the work of an organization. With this sense of purpose in mind, quality improvement takes on n e w life.

Qualities of a Strong Vision In an organization with strong vision, quality improvement is not something that only takes place w h e n market share drops or w h e n serious problems are identified. Organizations with a strong vision consistently rise to the challenge of outdoing themselves. This is not to say that they d o not recognize or reward successes, but rather that each success is viewed as a milestone along the route to fulfilling a larger purpose. Although every organization must set its o w n vision and develop its o w n standards, there are certain characteristics that can provide guidelines for thinking about an organization's vision.

54

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

The Vision Provides a Sense of Direction for Organizations A vision articulates w h e r e the organization is h e a d e d a n d w h a t it is trying to accomplish. A vision projects an exciting future a n d is realistic. It is a direction t o w a r d the future b a s e d in b o t h possibilities a n d desire. Things like a 5-year p l a n m a y h e l p p r o v i d e focus a n d give s o m e sense of direction, b u t a task-oriented p l a n is n o t a vision. The vision clearly takes into account the cultural values of the organization a n d articulates w h a t the organization aims to achieve. The day-to-day performance o b jectives at Microsoft m a y vary w i d e l y b u t the long-term vision continues to g u i d e the organization forward.

A Clear Vision Provides a Context for Decision Making A l t h o u g h a long-term vision m a y not b e a b o u t day-to-day decisions, it does h e l p to shape a n d g u i d e them. A vision statement s h o u l d b e the b a c k d r o p against which all choices a n d decisions can b e m e a s u r e d a n d assessed. M a n y g o o d a n d interesting ideas e m e r g e in a m a r k e t environment. Successful organizations are able to choose b e t w e e n t h e m a n d act o n only those that m o v e t h e m t o w a r d the accomplishment of their vision. At Ford, the vision of "Quality is Job 1" allows m a n a g e r s a n d executives to m a k e clear-cut decisions a b o u t p r o d u c t m o d e l s . Increased performance or sleeker b o d y designs are considered if they collectively contribute to creating a higher quality product. Alone, they d o n o t serve the goals of the organization. W h e n i m p o r t a n t decisions h a v e to b e m a d e , an organization w i t h a clear vision of its future can ask, "Will this h e l p u s accomplish our goals?" "Does this m o v e u s in the direction w e h a v e c o m m i t t e d to follow?"

A Shared Vision Must Reflect Values and Culture

Organizational

For a vision to serve its function a n d g u i d e the organization surely forward, it m u s t b e believed a n d acted o n b y m e m b e r s at all levels of the organization. For this to occur, the organizational mission a n d the d a y to-day culture a n d practices of the organization m u s t b e well m a t c h e d . A vision for the future of an organization m u s t arise o u t of its present

Vision and Cultural Development ¥

55

circumstances. The cultural framework in which organizational m e m bers make sense of their work experience must be attended to in the process of developing a vision for the organization's future. A s the vision aims to m o v e the organization forward and prepares it for change, it must also provide a sense of direction and give focus for organizational members. At the same time that the articulation of a vision should take these concerns into consideration, the ultimate implementation of processes to achieve the vision must be congruent with what members are being told. If the messages that they hear in training seminars and read in company documents d o not reflect members' daily experience, not only are they less likely to be motivated to work toward fulfillment of the organizational vision, they are more likely to be distrustful of management. Obviously, neither of these conditions leads the organization in a positive direction. The vision-culture link can be thought of as cyclical in nature, with the vision both arising out of the larger organizational culture and helping to shape and focus the evolution of that culture. The time during which the organizational vision is defined is a good time to assess the nature of the organizational culture. If the culture is not conducive to carrying out the vision of the organization, changes m a y be required at other levels. Throughout this process it is important to keep in mind that organizational members often have a significant amount of themselves invested in the day-to-day routines and practices of the organization. Making sweeping changes without their input is likely to lead to dissatisfaction and alienation, not to increased identification. This is another reason w h y it is so important for the organizational vision to be coconstructed by members all across the organization.

A Clear Vision Recognizes and Responds to a Pressing Need For organizational members to feel that their efforts are useful and meaningful, the product or service that the organization is committed to providing must meet a need that is both real and perceived. Federal Express is a prime example of an organization that w a s founded and has thrived on the continuous fulfillment of a felt need. When first founded, the company recognized the difficulties faced by organizations in which the members could converse and reach agreements very rapidly by elec-

56 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

tronic m e a n s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n b u t w e r e then often forced to wait several d a y s for the delivery of official d o c u m e n t s that w o u l d allow t h e m to finalize agreements already reached informally The c o m p a n y w a s f o u n d e d w i t h a vision of p r o v i d i n g g u a r a n t e e d overnight delivery of letters a n d small parcels. To achieve this ambitious goal, it built in quality control m e a s u r e s very early on that w o u l d b o t h p r o v i d e accountability a n d allow organizational m e m b e r s to see the effects of their success m o r e readily. Allowing customers to call or u s e c o m p u t e r software to easily track their s h i p m e n t s increased organizational m e m b e r s ' incentives to ensure that the vision of the organization w a s fulfilled. It also allowed m e m b e r s to m o r e easily observe h o w their contributions h e l p e d to meet real n e e d s b y fulfilling the vision of the company.

A Vision Helps Create a Strong Future by Acting in the Present A l t h o u g h the function of a vision is to enable the organization to focus o n the big picture a n d see a future for itself, k n o w i n g w h e r e o n e is h e a d e d allows one to take decisive action in the present to m o v e in that direction. Being future focused will n o t help the organization to m o v e forward unless steps are taken every d a y to m o v e in that direction. M a n a g e r s b e c o m e leaders w h e n they are able to enact the values a n d principles e m b e d d e d in the organizational vision in their day-to-day interactions w i t h e m p l o y e e s a n d in the a p p r o a c h that they take to their o w n job performance. Once a vision for the organization h a s b e e n articulated, it m u s t b e c o m e a n integral p a r t of day-to-day routines for it to lead to increased identification or play a significant role in s h a p i n g the future of the organization. It is the responsibility of individuals in leadership positions to c o m m u n i c a t e the vision. This involves m o r e than m a n a g e r s ' reciting the organization's vision statement to their subordinates, however. Sometimes u n d e r s t a n d i n g at a d e e p e r level w h a t the accomplishment of that vision involves a n d u s ing that framework to s h a p e everything from job descriptions to perform a n c e evaluations can h a v e a m o r e powerful impact. C o n v e y i n g the u n d e r l y i n g goals that the vision aims to accomplish is w h a t will ultimately h e l p s h a p e the direction of the organization. M a n y c o m p a n i e s h a v e invested a great deal of time a n d energy in the d e v e l o p m e n t of mission statements a n d the articulation of a vision. Far too frequently, however, the outcome of the p l a n n i n g stage gets carefully

Vision and Cultural Development

¥

57

written up into policy manuals or annual reports without ever having a significant impact on the day-to-day operations of the organization. This is not a vision. This does not lead to inspiration. This does not strengthen organizational culture or enhance member identification. This is an expensive w a y to spend a great deal of time and m o n e y while accomplishing little, if anything, of any real value to the organization. If, however, a vision is used to help coordinate the activities of subcultural groups within the larger organization, it can have a powerful unifying effect. A vision cannot be applied uniformly across subunits in a corporation in most cases. For this reason, developing that underlying sense of where the vision is directing the organization and being able to help members across the organizational system see the relevance of its focus to their functions can often be more helpful than any number of formal seminars or campaigns for increasing the commitment of multiple organizational members to the future direction of the organizational system.

How Do These Characteristics to Create Strong Vision?

Combine

We have seen that to create a shared vision, the vision must provide an overall aim or direction for the organization. In doing so, as the vision shapes the w a y the organization thinks about its future it also guides the choices that are made about h o w to act today. For this to lead to increased employee identification, the vision must reflect organizational values. If it does not, members are less likely to be highly identified with the organization and more likely to be skeptical of management. When a true, shared vision is developed, organizational members have something to believe in and feel a sense of purpose in their work. It is this belief that the work that they d o serves a purpose and has meaning that leads employees to develop a strong identification with the mission of the organization and take action to help accomplish it. They are increasingly encouraged to d o so to the extent that the product or service provided and the overall aim of the vision respond to a real and pressing need. All of these factors must be complemented by day-to-day enactment of the values and principles articulated in the vision. This daily enactment involves the clear communication of the broader sense of vision to organizational members. A vision statement does little g o o d on a shelf or even on a wall. Simply reciting the vision statement without accom-

58

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

p a n y i n g action is n o t sufficient either. Leaders m u s t " w a l k the talk" a n d d e m o n s t r a t e their continued a n d u n w a v e r i n g c o m m i t m e n t to fulfilling the organizational vision. U n w a v e r i n g does n o t m e a n u n q u e s t i o n i n g , however, a n d successful organizations regularly assess the extent to w h i c h their vision r e s p o n d s to the changing n e e d s of the environment.

Adapting to Change We h a v e already m e n t i o n e d that to remain successful, a n organization m u s t remain flexible a n d a d a p t i v e to change. It is i m p o r t a n t to recognize, too, however, that even the m o s t well intended visions can t u r n o u t to h a v e been m i s g u i d e d or n o t lead the organization in p r o d u c t i v e directions. The wisest leaders expect to encounter failures o n the r o a d to success. A l t h o u g h difficulties are never exactly welcomed, leaders w i t h a strong vision for the organization are able to look at failures a n d mistakes as opportunities for unparalleled learning a n d organizational g r o w t h . Sometimes mistakes are able to p r o v i d e u s w i t h insights a n d point u s in directions that w o u l d h a v e been invisible otherwise. Visions are a b o u t recognizing the opportunities in setbacks a n d rising to meet n e w challenges. Those w h o see errors as s o m e o n e ' s fault typically s p e n d valuable time reorganizing h u m a n resources, w i t h o u t ever fundamentally altering the circumstances that led to the negative outcome in the first place. Those w h o are able to see obstacles as the b y p r o d u c t of p o o r p l a n n i n g , of m i s g u i d e d vision, or of unforeseen circumstances are better able to m a k e rapid reassessments a n d u s e t e m p o r a r y setbacks to catapult the organization m o r e surely t o w a r d a m o r e desirable outcome. For these changes in direction to take place, however, it is critical that leaders secure the s u p p o r t of organizational m e m b e r s , for they are the ones w h o will b e responsible for the daily activities that m o v e the organization in particular directions.

Building Identification W h a t exactly does building identification entail? W h a t is a n "identified" employee? H o w does building identification b o t h strengthen the organization a n d enhance the w o r k experience for organizational m e m b e r s ?

Vision and Cultural Development

Τ

59

Building identification involves developing systems in which organizational members are inspired, encouraged, and motivated to take action. A n identified employee is one w h o shares core values with the mission of the organization and feels a sense of gratification and accomplishment b y helping to achieve organizational objectives. Such identified individuals help build a strong organization, because those that work there are committed to achieving the overall goals that it seeks to accomplish. When employees identify with an organizational vision, they feel increased degrees of satisfaction from the performance of tasks w h e n they are able to see h o w their work helps to create an outcome of which they are supportive. A clearly articulated vision and the incorporation of its underlying principles into daily activities may help to create the necessary conditions for identification, but unless members take personal ownership of the process of achieving the goals of the organization, such identification will be tenuous at best. For an organizational member to develop a deeper sense of commitment to the organizational project, Paul Strebel (1996) suggests that they must be able to answer questions such as Τ

What is my role in achieving the goals of the organization?

Τ

How does my job or role fit into the bigger picture?

Τ

How will my task performance be supported by the organization (materially, financially?)

Τ

What forms of assessment will be available to help me gage my contributions?

Τ

How is my compensation related to my performance of organizational objectives?

Although many of these questions are typically answered in policy and procedure manuals, having such questions answered personally on a case-by-case basis may lend greater support to the project. The development of individual agreements with organizational members can provide an opportunity to clarify explicitly h o w the tasks performed b y particular organizational members help to m o v e the organization in a desired direction. This can be beneficial both to e m p l o y e e s / m e m b e r s and to management. Employees may develop a deeper sense of the importance of their job to the organization and feel more compelled to help the organization

60

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

achieve its mission. This can b e b o t h intrinsically a n d extrinsically rew a r d i n g . F r o m a m a n a g e r i a l perspective, d e v e l o p i n g a d e e p e r sense of the i m p o r t a n c e of the m a n y interrelated tasks that m u s t b e p e r f o r m e d to achieve objectives m a y b e useful later on in m a k i n g decisions a b o u t organizational change. Entering into such a process creates a n environm e n t in w h i c h e m p l o y e e s are e n c o u r a g e d a n d inspired to e n g a g e in inn o v a t i v e activity that helps m o v e the organization t o w a r d its desired goals a n d then sets u p a r e w a r d structure for recognizing the contributions that are ultimately m a d e .

Exercise

3.2

• What leads members to identify with an organization? What increases and lessens the strength of identification? •

Complete the sample organization identification questionnaire at the end of the chapter (Appendix 3.1). How might organizational culture be managed to increase identification?

Developing and Implementing a Vision For an organizational leader or s o m e o n e w h o m a y find himself or herself in a leadership role in the future, u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w to d e v e l o p a n d i m p l e m e n t vision in a n organization is a n i m p o r t a n t skill. Once y o u u n d e r s t a n d the i m p o r t a n c e of shared vision, are able to see its connection to the strength of an organization's culture, a n d h a v e identified the key players in the process, y o u m u s t devise a strategy for facilitating the d e v e l o p m e n t of this vision. The following steps p r o v i d e a general overview of w h a t to d o in the process of creating a vision. A s w i t h a n y activity of this i m p o r t a n c e to an organization, however, enlisting the assistance of trained professionals is i m p o r t a n t to the success of this endeavor.

The Importance of a Qualified Facilitator H a v i n g a n i n d i v i d u a l or small t e a m of individuals w h o can assist in the structuring of the visioning process is critical to its success. This in-

Vision and Cultural Development

V

61

dividual should have a relatively small stake in the outcome of the visioning process in order to be better able to act in such a w a y as to encourage the representation of a broad range of perspectives and challenge the status quo. Whether the facilitator is an organizational member or not is generally a matter of preference, but he or she should have the experience and expertise to keep the discussion focused and be highly motivated to help the organization develop a shared vision.

Assessing Where You Are and Have Been Before beginning to look forward it is important to have a clear sense of the status quo. Understanding where y o u are starting from is critical to developing a vision that fits with the culture of the organization. In this phase, leaders should identify a plan for vision building and develop a process to assess the activities that the organization currently engages in. Benchmarking during this phase allows organizational members to compare their current processes to those of competitors and provides a framework in which to think about the future goals of the organization.

Contemplating a New Direction Once a clear understanding is developed of current practices and processes, the organization should begin to think about where it is headed. By this phase, key stakeholders should be identified and their input should be sought to determine h o w the organization is currently working to meet their needs. A n analysis of this input, in light of current practices, should begin to point to areas that might benefit from change.

Building a Vision Together Once the ideas have begun to emerge for a n e w direction, the vision must begin to be clearly articulated. The outcome of this phase should be a concise statement of the future direction of the organization. This statement will help organizational members articulate what they d o and develop a sense of pride in their work and identification with their organization. This process must include multiple stakeholders, and the final product must be clearly communicated across levels of the organization.

62

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Identifying

Roadblocks

After clearly articulating w h e r e the organization w a n t s to go a n d d e veloping a statement that stakeholders can b u y into, it is i m p o r t a n t to recognize w h e r e challenges m a y b e encountered. To the extent that p o tential s t u m b l i n g blocks can b e identified, d e v e l o p m e n t of the strategic p l a n can help to a d d r e s s h o w those will b e dealt with. Taking the time to d o this at this stage can h e l p reduce the likelihood of serious setbacks that can b e discouraging a n d demoralizing for organizational m e m b e r s d o w n the road.

Realizing the Organizational

Vision

After investing the time a n d energy into this process, it is i m p o r t a n t that action b e taken immediately to capitalize on the e n t h u s i a s m a n d motivation generated b y the process. W h e n a shared vision is created, organizational m e m b e r s m a y b e inspired a n d optimistic a b o u t the n e w directions that the organization is taking a n d excited a b o u t the role they will play in the process. If implementation of practices designed to m o v e t o w a r d fulfillment of the mission is n o t forthcoming, however, d e m o r alization m a y set in rapidly. A clear strategic plan should b e d e v e l o p e d outlining the goals for vision implementation, a n d meaningful discussion s h o u l d b e h a d at all levels of the organization a b o u t h o w such i m p l e m e n t a t i o n can m o s t effectively b e integrated into current systems. A s this discussion evolves, the vision for the organization s h o u l d b e c o m e m o r e d e e p l y integrated into daily communicative practices in the organization. Job description, performance evaluations, a n d routine discussions a n d decision-making practices s h o u l d reflect the u n d e r l y i n g values that are e m b e d d e d in the organizational vision.

Developing a Self-Monitoring System of Vision Adjustment We h a v e already a d d r e s s e d the importance of continuously assessing the effectiveness b o t h of the vision a n d of its implementation. You m u s t , however, establish a clear time frame for assessment at the outset. After a specified time, w o r k s h o p s a n d performance review sessions s h o u l d b e

Vision and Cultural Development

Ψ 63

h e l d to assess the effectiveness of the organizational vision. Identify the q u e s t i o n s that are m o s t salient for the particular organizational situation a n d b e p r e p a r e d to revise those aspects that h a v e n o t lived u p to expectations. Assess realistically h o w long it s h o u l d take for n e w p r o g r a m s to b e p u t in place a n d b e g i v e n a chance to b e effective. A t the r e v i e w p o i n t it s h o u l d b e relatively easy to assess w h i c h p r o g r a m s are t a k i n g h o l d m o r e slowly t h a n expected v e r s u s those that are n o t taking h o l d at all or are p r o d u c i n g u n d e s i r a b l e results.

Exercise

3.3

•

How receptive/resistant to change is the organization that you belong to? What factors influence this cultural attitude? Does this lend strength to your organization or weaken it? How can this help move you toward articulation of a clearer vision?

•

Look at this organization and consider the following questions: ~ What is unique about us? -

What values are true priorities for the next year?

-

What would make me personally commit my mind and heart to this vision over the next several years?

-

What does the world really need that our organization can and should provide?

~ What do I want our organization to accomplish so that I will be committed to, aligned with, and proud of my association with this organization?

Review Questions Ψ

What is a long-term vision and w h y are such visions important?

•

What are the principal qualities of an effective vision?

Τ

What does it mean for a member to identify with the organization? What influences identification?

"Ψ H o w w o u l d y o u g o about developing an effective vision?

64

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Discussion Questions Ψ

Many vision statements s e e m vague. Even Dilbert makes constant fun of them. What d o y o u believe is "wrong" w i t h m o s t of t h e m or the process b y w h i c h they are developed?

Ψ

Think about a vision statement that has been effective. What m a d e it so?

References and Recommended Readings Allen, R. (1995). O n a clear d a y y o u can have a vision. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 16,39-45. Cheney, G. (1982). Organizational identification as process and product. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University. Lewis, C. P. (1997). Building a shared vision: A leader's guide to aligning the organization. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Klein, S. (1996). A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(2), 32-46. Strebel, P. (1996, May-June). W h y d o e m p l o y e e s resist change? Harvard Business Review, pp. 86-92.

Appendix 3.1

Sample Organizational Identification Questionnaire

While rilling o u t the following survey, please think of y o u r daily w o r k routine at y o u r company. For each of the following statements, please circle the response that best describes y o u r belief about, or attitude tow a r d , y o u r company. The possible responses are: YES! YES yes ? no NO NO!

I agree very strongly with the statement. I agree strongly with the statement. I agree with the statement. I neither agree or disagree with the statement. I disagree with the statement. I disagree strongly with the statement. I disagree very strongly with the statement.

1. I a m p r o u d to b e a n e m p l o y e e of m y company. YES! YES yes ? no NO

NO!

2. I ' m very concerned a b o u t the success of m y c o m p a n y a n d w o r k group. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 3. W h e n m a k i n g on-the-job decisions, I consider the consequences of m y actions for m y company. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 4. I a m b o t h e r e d w h e n other p e o p l e criticize m y company. YES! YES yes ? no NO

NO!

5. I like w h e r e I think m y c o m p a n y is going. YES! YES yes ? no

NO!

NO

65

66

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

6. I w o u l d be quite willing to s p e n d the rest of m y career w i t h this company. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 7. The people at m y c o m p a n y are different from others in o u r i n d u s t r y YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 8. I a m willing to p u t in extra effort in order to h e l p m y c o m p a n y b e successful. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 9. M y values a n d m y c o m p a n y ' s values are quite similar. YES! YES yes ? no NO

NO!

10. I tell m y friends that m y c o m p a n y is a great organization to w o r k for. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 11. I usually agree with m y c o m p a n y ' s policies on i m p o r t a n t matters. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO! 12. M y job with m y c o m p a n y is an i m p o r t a n t p a r t of w h o I am. YES! YES yes ? no NO NO!

To score, give 7 points for each YES!; 6 for YES; 5 for yes; 4 for ?; 3 for n o ; 2 for N O ; a n d 1 for NO!. A score about 60 indicates a fairly h i g h degree of identification a n d employees that are m o r e t h a n willing to contribute to the c o m p a n y ' s success. Scores from 36-60 indicate that it is just a job a n d motivation will usually c o m e primarily from w o r k incentives. A score u n d e r 36 indicates a major m o r a l e / l e g i t i m a c y p r o b l e m that is probably contributing to low performance. SOURCE: Adapted from Cheney (1982). NOTE: Used with permission.

4 τ Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing Overview People respond to the meanings they have for words and events rather than to the words and events themselves—the statement made is rarely the statement received. This basic communication principle appears obvious but is one of the most frequently overlooked principles in organizational life. The mediation between words and events and the meanings individuals have for them can be well described as a cultural process. The produced meanings in turn circle back to influence what is said and done and the cultural interpretation of these meanings. The management of meaning is the ultimate goal in the choice of specific words and actions. The most basic process of managing meaning is called framing. Framing refers to the ways leaders can use their language to shape or modify particular interpretations of organizational events thereby directing likely responses. Whereas visioning involves the shaping of formal mission statements and espoused values, framing focuses on the everyday communication of organizational metaphors, stories, artifacts, and myths that shape interpretations. Although these discursive devices are less formally articulated than are their visioning counterparts, they nevertheless play a crucial role in creating 67

68

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

and normalizing organizational members' experiences. Like most communication skills, the ability to frame situations in a certain light is a learned process. This chapter outlines the importance of the interpretive process, shows how language socially constructs interpretive frameworks, and explains how managers can use the process of framing to reinforce and modify an organizational culture and member's experiences and responses.

Key Objectives of the Chapter Τ

To understand the relationship between visioning and framing within the larger cultural model

Y

To understand how language creates, shapes, and reproduces interpretive frames

Ψ

To gain the ability to use effectively discursive instruments available for framing, including metaphors, stories, traditions, vocabulary, artifacts, contrast, and spin

W To identify several framing dangers, including exaggeration, mixed messages, and the way language can marginalize and hide discursive options Ψ To identify and evaluate framing opportunities

Questions to Consider Y

Have you ever had a discussion where you thought the other person understood you, only to find out later that this person thought something different was meant? Why do you think you had different meanings?

Τ

Can you think of a time when two alternative descriptions of an event or decision were possible and one was chosen over the other? What most influenced the choice? How do you see the relation between who said it and what was said?

Ψ

Have you ever been in a meeting where people's stories seem to have far more weight than the available information? Why are stories sometimes listened to more than data? What makes a story especially effective?

Τ

Can you think of a group or organization you are familiar with that uses jargon? If you look carefully at the jargon used, what does it tell you about power relations in the company or the worldview of members?

Ψ

Try to think of an example where you have heard someone (possibly in the media) attempt to promote a positive "spin" to the understanding of an event. What happened? Why do you think this happened?

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing

^

Τ

69

The Centrality of Interpretations

The w a y s w e talk about work environments are connected to the w a y people think about and act in the workplace. A s Mawhinney (1998) notes, wording a situation in different terms can elicit different w a y s of understanding solutions. For example, the statement "Absenteeism causes inefficiency" will most likely elicit questions about h o w the organization can devise punishments to drive d o w n absenteeism. In contrast, the statement "High attendance is correlated with efficiency" is more likely to evoke discussion about h o w the organization can devise positive reinforcements to motivate higher attendance. Consider the following dialogue w e heard on the street the other day: Young Man (after sitting down next to a young woman with an ice cream cone):

"Nice night, isn't it?" Young Woman: "This isn't a bar!" Young Man: "Sorry, must be tough being so attractive and having guys hit on you all the time." Young Woman: "Look, I have a boyfriend." The dialogue is both rather obvious and straightforward and easily understood by nearly anyone familiar with North American culture. On the other hand, it is quite complex and requires a fair amount of sophistication in hearers for it to be obvious to them. N o statement is a direct or a literal response to the one preceding it. In fact, the replies could be interpreted as nonsense, but w e did not so interpret them, nor did they. Each statement must be understood or interpreted within some frame of what is being said or done. Interpretation is deeply cultural. A n interaction like this one requires standard social interaction scripts and w a y s of making statements fit those scripts. A n d any particular interpretation is always held against competing interpretations worked out in time. One could imagine a number of statements the young man could have made to convince the y o u n g w o m a n that this w a s intended as a casual conversation. A n d w e might never k n o w whether she w a s deflecting an advance or merely exploring h o w interested and tenacious he was. All statements and actions are subject to interpretation and a continued process of struggle over the appropriate frame to be applied.

70 Τ LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION Even the clearest statement cannot escape this intrinsic quality of h u m a n interaction. But careful attention to interpretive processes can aid the m a n a g e m e n t of the process. W h e n p e o p l e talk there are a l w a y s t w o conversations that can b e displayed. The first records the explicit u s e of w o r d s a n d expressions. T h e s e c o n d is the inferred interaction b e t w e e n w h a t p e o p l e m e a n t a n d t h o u g h t the other heard. These are called the "left-hand" a n d "righth a n d " interactions, respectively, because that is h o w they appear on paper. Consider the following interaction from a real workplace. H e r e the so-called right-hand dialogue (the interplay of interpretations) is also displayed:

Says

Means

Joe: "Eric, h o w long will it take y o u to d o that project?"

Eric has the information and should participate in this decision.

Eric: "I don't know? H o w long should it take?"

Joe doesn't make any sense. He's the boss. Why doesn't he tell me when to finish it?

Joe: "You're in the best position to estimate the time requirements."

Eric won't take responsibility. It's time he learned. I can't work with anybody who does not take responsibility.

Eric: "Ten days, I guess."

This is crazy. I don't know. I haven't thought about it, but he's expecting an answer. I'll guess, maybe this is close.

Joe: "Take fifteen. Sure y o u can get it done in that time?"

He'll never get it done in ten days, probably not even fifteen. He doesn't seem to have the ability to estimate time, but we have an agreement.

Eric: "Okay."

These are my orders, fifteen days.

The project actually s h o u l d h a v e b e e n given a b o u t 20 d a y s . So Eric w o r k e d overtime a n d o n the w e e k e n d s . But o n the 15th d a y h e still n e e d e d another d a y to finish.

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing

Says

V

71

Means

Joe: "Are y o u d o n e and ready to m o v e on?"

I'll make sure that he fulfills our agreement.

Eric: "I'll finish it tomorrow."

I hope he appreciates how hard I have worked to complete his orders.

Joe: "But w e had agreed that it w o u l d be ready today."

I knew he could not get it done. I hope he learns a lesson in responsibility.

Eric: "I can't work in a place like this."

What a stupid, incompetent boss! Not only did he give me the wrong orders, but he does not appreciate how hard I worked. I can't work for a person like this.

Joe: "Huh?"

Boy, is he temperamental. What's going on here? He must be having problems at home.

Interactions like this one happen all the time in organizations and usually remain undetected or are written off as the effects of a b a d day or a personality problem. Such differences are not the result of ignorance, bad will, incompetence, resistance, or personalities. They are often the result of smart, dedicated people using their competence with the best of intentions. They are using the most basic values and assumptions to make sense. But the basic values and assumptions are different. Similar interactions are especially prone to happen during transitions and cultural change processes, since normal rules of interpretations m a y n o longer be shared and fear and distrust m a y be higher. Most people manage the left-hand dialogue with little thought to the right-hand one. Leaders aware of interpretation processes manage the right-hand one with careful selection of words and expressions. Framing is the process of presenting things in such a w a y as to shape interpretations in a particular way. When framing is successful, meanings are more closely aligned and people are able to see events in n e w and more interesting and useful ways.

72

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Exercise

4.1

Choose a recent discussion, especially one where you felt misunderstood. Record the left-hand statements as close to literally as you can. Now try to write the implicit right-hand discussion. What meanings were missed? What type of assumptions appear most responsible for the nonalignments?

Why Framing? Leaders d o not have a choice about whether or not to communicate. They only have a choice about h o w much to manage what they communicate. —Edwin Schein (1992, p. 253)

Organizational leaders operate in turbulent environments that are partly of their o w n m a k i n g . A l t h o u g h leaders d o not a n d cannot completely control all events, they nevertheless influence h o w events are seen a n d u n d e r s t o o d . Arguably, the m o s t central tool of influence is language. Most leaders s p e n d nearly 70% of their time c o m m u n i c a t i n g , b u t few p a y close attention to h o w their l a n g u a g e influences the interpretive frameworks of those a r o u n d them. M a n a g e r s w h o are highly skilled in l a n g u a g e can easily p r o d u c e w o r d s a n d sentences that highlight s o m e values while m a s k i n g others. Sometimes language is so s m o o t h that it seduces p e o p l e into believing that m a n y of the so-called facts in o u r w o r l d are objectively, rather t h a n socially, created. Framing is a quality of communication that leads others to accept one m e a n i n g over another. It is a skill w i t h profound effects o n h o w organizational m e m b e r s u n d e r s t a n d a n d respond to the w o r l d in which they live. It is a skill that m o s t successful leaders possess, yet o n e that is n o t often taught. Nevertheless, m a n a g e r s can learn h o w to m a n a g e m e a n i n g t h r o u g h framing. According to Gail Fairhurst a n d Robert Sarr (1996), framing consists of three key c o m p o n e n t s : language, thought, a n d forethought. Language is the m o s t obvious p a r t of the skill. T h r o u g h language, m a n a g e r s place focus o n aspects of situations that are a m b i g u o u s a n d v a g u e . L a n g u a g e helps to categorize topics in an organized fashion. T h r o u g h the creation

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing V

73

of vibrant stories a n d m e t a p h o r s , l a n g u a g e h e l p s u s to r e m e m b e r inform a t i o n a n d acts to transform the w a y in w h i c h w e v i e w situations. To p u t l a n g u a g e to use, of course, p e o p l e m u s t first h a v e thought and reflected o n their o w n interpretive frameworks a n d those of others. In the absence of a clear idea of the desired values to b e instilled, l a n g u a g e cannot w o r k to c o m m u n i c a t e goals. Last, for framing to b e successful, leaders m u s t learn to frame s p o n t a n e o u s l y in m y r i a d situations. Being able to d o so h a s to d o w i t h h a v i n g the forethought to predict framing opportunities. In other w o r d s , o n e m u s t p l a n in order to b e s p o n t a n e o u s .

The Relation of Framing to Visioning and Culture Change A s a p a r t of the c h a n g e process, leaders can m o s t effectively modify or change organizational culture t h r o u g h the c o m m u n i c a t i v e behaviors of visioning a n d framing. Leaders use vision statements to articulate the organization's goals. Visioning is essential to creating the n o r m s , m i s sion, a n d rules of an organization, c o m p o n e n t s that m a k e u p the organization's formally e s p o u s e d goals. T h u s , w e can u n d e r s t a n d vision to b e a n organizational ideal. Nevertheless, as any experienced m a n a g e r u n d e r s t a n d s , it is o n e thing to formulate official goals; it is a n entirely different (and possibly m o r e difficult task) to c o m m u n i c a t e these goals so that they are inculcated in a n d acted o n b y e m p l o y e e s o n a daily basis. This is w h e r e framing comes in. W h e r e a s visioning pertains to the organization's articulated goals, framing involves the e v e r y d a y b e h a v ioral a n d c o m m u n i c a t i v e processes that organizational m e m b e r s u s e to reach, contradict, or avoid these goals. Leaders frame events t h r o u g h the u s e of l a n g u a g e choices a n d techniques such as m e t a p h o r s , artifacts, stories, a n d m y t h s . F r a m i n g h e l p s align e v e r y d a y u n d e r s t a n d i n g s w i t h the organization's mission. Leaders can u s e m y r i a d framing devices to m o d ify interpretive frameworks that are n o t in concert w i t h the organization's vision.

The Social Construction of Interpretive Frames W h e n w e think of excellent speakers of o u r time, invariably n a m e s like John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., a n d M a y a A n g e l o u c o m e to

74

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

m i n d . These three speakers h a v e in c o m m o n a m a s t e r y of the English language, a seemingly effortless ability to m a k e pictures from w o r d s , a n d the capacity to m e s m e r i z e their audiences w i t h endless streams of rhetorical devices. In addition to being wonderful to listen to, these societal visionaries h a v e literally created a n e w reality b a s e d o n their w o r d s . W h e n King said in his "I H a v e a D r e a m " speech, "America h a s given the N e g r o p e o p l e a b a d check—a check w h i c h h a s c o m e back m a r k e d 'insufficient f u n d s ' " (quoted in Cook, 1985), his w o r d s created a reality that n e e d e d to b e acted on. T h r o u g h his metaphor, h e p o i n t e d o u t the bleak situation that America h a d created for African Americans. This metaphor, along w i t h m a n y others in the speech, created the urgency n e e d e d to set the civil rights m o v e m e n t into action. T h r o u g h language, t o d a y ' s m a n a g e r s can also create a n d f u n d a m e n tally change p e o p l e ' s interpretive frames. W h e n w e think of a n articul a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l vision, therefore, it is n o t so m u c h of a m e n t a l conception p u t into practice as it is a discursive i n s t r u m e n t that simultaneously shapes organizational m e m b e r s ' behavior a n d m e n t a l activity. T h u s , the organization's e s p o u s e d values are largely self-referential a n d self-reproducing. T h r o u g h repeated discourse, the vision b e c o m e s an imaginary object a n d the a p p a r e n t referent. Thus, the p o w e r of l a n g u a g e i n s t r u m e n t s (missions, m e t a p h o r s , stories, etc.) lies n o t only in their rhetorical ingenuity b u t also in their p o w e r to constitute a n d n o r m a l i z e reality. For instance, let u s analyze the concept of sexual harassment. For m o s t people today, sexual h a r a s s m e n t is conceptualized as a specific object or behavior; namely, it is defined as u n w a n t e d a n d offensive sexual advances or sexually derogatory or discriminatory remarks. Indeed, it is difficult to r e m e m b e r a time w h e n sexual h a r a s s m e n t h a s n o t existed, b u t the term itself w a s first used less than 20 years ago. Before the t e r m existed, the object of sexual h a r a s s m e n t as w e k n o w it also d i d n o t exist. Victims of u n w a n t e d sexual a d v a n c e s h a d only p h r a s e s such as "overly friendly" a n d w o r d s such as "uncomfortable" to describe their situation. As one m i g h t guess, victims d i d n o t h a v e an easy w a y of explaining their predicament. In the absence of w o r d s to describe the situation, m o s t perpetrators w e r e n o t held accountable for their behavior. W h o could b e ostracized for merely b e i n g "too friendly"? O n l y since the emergence of the actual phrase, in a late 1970s court case, h a s the behavior been u n d e r s t o o d as a concrete legal infraction w o r t h y of p u n i s h m e n t .

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing

Τ

75

But establishing a t e r m a n d v a r i o u s technical definitions d o e s n o t d o a w a y w i t h the contest of m e a n i n g s , the v a r i o u s w a y s p e o p l e struggle over w h a t things m e a n , in fact w h a t things are. A s Robin Clair (1993) h a s s h o w n , organizational stories a b o u t potentially h a r a s s i n g s t a t e m e n t s a n d events s o m e t i m e s dismiss the events as trivial or b a s e d in m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . O t h e r stories shift responsibility to the victim. A n d still o t h e r s d i s p l a y h i d d e n s o u r c e s of p o w e r relations q u e s t i o n i n g w h a t m i g h t otherwise b e seen as consensual. A s Clair s h o w e d , these are all cases of framings a n d the a t t e m p t to reach shared interpretations. A s is true in the p h r a s e sexual h a r a s s m e n t , sometimes the use of n e w w o r d s or p h r a s e s can b e helpful for describing a " g o i n g - o n " that w a s n o t previously articulated. T h r o u g h the normalization of the w o r d s , h o w ever, it is easy to forget that the concept itself is n o t a naturally occurring "object." Rather, like all concepts, it is p r o d u c e d t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e . A s illustrated in a case s t u d y of knowledge-intensive w o r k e r s (Deetz, 1997), concepts of w o r k ("integrated" a n d "smokestack") are n o t s i m p l y the n a m i n g of different things. The n a m i n g creates a n i m p o r t a n t difference, highlights w a y s things can b e seen as unlike a n d p r o v i d e s m o r e or less favored interpretations. The m o v e of treating these p r o d u c e d objects a n d their discontinuities a n d preferences as if they w e r e a p r o p e r t y of the w o r l d seals t h e s y s t e m off from discussion, since it is treated as n a t u r a l rather t h a n as p r o d u c e d . Ideas that m a y seem absolutely n o r m a l , real, a n d u n q u e s t i o n a b l e — for e x a m p l e , business concepts such as productivity, consultancy, a n d total quality m a n a g e m e n t — a r e actually p r o d u c e d t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e . Close analysis of these concepts b y m a n a g e r s can reclaim the constructed quality of these p r o d u c t i o n s , a n d t h r o u g h framing, leaders can u s e discursive constructions to p r o d u c e a n d change the cultures of their organizations.

•

Discursive Instruments for Framing

Leaders can h a v e a t r e m e n d o u s effect o n the interpretive frames of organizational m e m b e r s . W h a t a leader simply p a y s attention to can h a v e a h u g e i m p a c t o n h o w a p r o g r a m or d e p a r t m e n t functions. If a certain v a l u e or p r o g r a m is d e e m e d i m p o r t a n t , m a n a g e r s can increase its v a l u e in organizational m e m b e r s ' eyes b y consistently asking e m p l o y e e s q u e s tions a b o u t it or including the topic or p r o g r a m o n m e e t i n g a g e n d a s .

76

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

M a n a g e r s s h o u l d b e a w a r e t h a t their e m o t i o n a l b l o w u p s s e n d a m e m o r a b l e m e s s a g e to e m p l o y e e s . For instance, if a n organizational president reacts to a p r o d u c t failure b y immediately firing the e m p l o y e e s in charge of the p r o d u c t , a message will b e sent to others that it is n o t wise to take risks—a m e s s a g e that the president m a y n o t h a v e intended. Behavior speaks louder than w o r d s . If leaders w a n t to ensure that their values are inculcated into organizational m e m b e r s , t h e n they m u s t also p r o v i d e organizational systems that correlate w i t h their e s p o u s e d goals. O n e w a y they can consistently c o m m u n i c a t e their vision is t h r o u g h framing. Fairhurst a n d Sarr (1996) overview m a n y of the i m p o r t a n t w a y s to frame situations. In this section, w e describe several different discursive framing tools, including m e t a p h o r s , stories, traditions, jargon a n d slogans, artifacts, contrast, a n d spin. S o m e culture researchers go so far as to conceptualize organizational cultures as consisting of these symbols. A l t h o u g h w e u n d e r s t a n d the merits of viewing discursive elements such as stories, m e t a p h o r s , a n d m y t h s as constituting a culture, w e feel t h a t it is m o r e w o r t h w h i l e to view these things as discursive instruments that actively create, shape, a n d modify organizational culture. These discursive tools can b e v i e w e d as h o l d i n g a symbolic function, in that they a l w a y s represent s o m e t h i n g different or s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n w h a t they are. Table 4.1 outlines the p u r p o s e of each discursive framing tool, offers r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a b o u t w h e n these tools s h o u l d b e used, a n d gives a brief e x a m p l e of each.

Metaphor—Comparing

One Thing to Another

M e t a p h o r s are the m o s t complex a n d i m p o r t a n t framing tools for organizational leaders. Like all framing devices, a m e t a p h o r is a form of symbolic, rather t h a n literal, expression. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1992) defines a m e t a p h o r as, " A figure of speech in w h i c h a w o r d or p h r a s e that ordinarily designates one thing is u s e d to designate another, t h u s m a k i n g an implicit comparison, as in 'a sea of troubles'" (p. 1134). M e t a p h o r s are pleasurable a n d surprising to listen to because they h e l p u s see the ordinary in a n e w way. In a d d i t i o n to creating vivid w o r d pictures, however, m e t a p h o r s serve as the essential b r i d g e b e t w e e n the literal a n d the symbolic, b e t w e e n cognition a n d

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing

Τ

77

TABLE 4.1 Discursive F r a m i n g Tools a n d Their U s e Discursive Tool Metaphor

Potential Pitfalls

Purpose

Example

To g i v e an idea or

I think of our office as just o n e b i g family. We have our squabbles but that doesn't keep u s from working with each other.

They can mask or discourage significant alternative meanings.

In our business, tragedy happens, such as w h e n . . . (story) You can't take it personally.

They can b e c o m e overused or s e n d mixed messages.

program a n e w meaning b y comparing it to something else.

Stories (Myths a n d Legends)

To frame a subject by anecdote i n a vivid and m e m o rable way.

Traditions (Rites, Rituals, Ceremonies)

Annual holiday To pattern and d e fine an organization parties; daily performances such at regular time as saying hello to increments to confirm and reproduce every employee. organizational values.

They m a y b e nonmeaningful or trite or make it difficult for n e w meanings t o emerge.

Slogans, Jargon, and Catchphrases

To frame a subject in a memorable a n d familiar fashion.

Calling passengers "punters."

A w o r d or phrase can b e c o m e loaded, m i s understood, or overused.

Artifacts

To illuminate corporate values through physical vestiges (sometimes in a w a y language cannot)

Layout of a board room; design of offices/cubicles,

Sometimes they contradict corporate mission.

Contrast

To describe a subject Our n e w business in terms of w h a t it plan is nonhieraris not. chical and unobtrusive.

Spin

To talk about a concept s o as to give it a positive or negative connotation.

It m a y d o little to define the concept.

"That w a s a g o o d D o not u s e if the speaker. She hesidifference b e t w e e n tated s o m e , but reality a n d the spin that just s h o w s she is excessive a n d really thought about unbelievable, her answers."

78

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

affect, a n d b e t w e e n the conscious a n d the unconscious, according to m a n y psychologists. T h u s , m e t a p h o r s are often u s e d to present n e w ideas a n d insights in a w a y n o t always available within the processes of analytic reasoning a n d discourse. T h r o u g h the u s e of m e t a p h o r s , p e o p l e c o m e to u n d e r s t a n d a n d experience one thing ( p r o g r a m , concept, idea) in terms of another. Organizations can b e metaphorically discussed a n d t h o u g h t a b o u t in terms of machines, organisms, armies, teams, or families. Each c o m p a r i s o n d r a w s attention to certain aspects of organizational life a n d tends to h i d e other aspects. The m e t a p h o r also can direct decision m a k i n g a n d the interpretation of events. A n organization that thinks of itself in family t e r m s — p r o d u c e s a family culture—has a very different response to layoff pressures than a culture framed as military or mechanical. M a n a g e r s can think of m e t a p h o r s as figurative analogies that d r a w comparisons b e t w e e n t w o dissimilar things. We use these analogies so m u c h in o u r e v e r y d a y talk that it is sometimes difficult to identify them. Consider the following examples: Τ

The introduction of a new product is a baby step in the right direction.

Ψ

The impending layoffs are just a Band-Aid o n the problem.

Ψ

This office is just one big family.

Ψ

If w e don't upgrade our computers soon, the company will miss the boat.

Ψ

The institution of paternal leave levels the playing field.

T h r o u g h figurative analogies, speakers c o m p a r e unfamiliar situations to those p e o p l e u n d e r s t a n d a n d can identify with. Likewise, business leaders can use m e t a p h o r s to explain their corporate vision. Fairhurst a n d Sarr (1996) discuss h o w a small g r o u p of m a n agers in a public affairs p r o g r a m tried to envision a m o r e p r o d u c t i v e future for their company. After a concentrated analysis, the m a n a g e r s decided that their mission w a s threefold: (a) to continue the general information-dissemination activities of any public affairs d e p a r t m e n t , (b) to get buy-in from senior m a n a g e m e n t they n e e d e d to responsibly c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h the public, a n d (c) to engage in m o r e t w o - w a y communication w i t h the public b y h a v i n g employees b e c o m e m e m b e r s of various stakeholder organizations.

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing W 79 A s the public affairs m a n a g e r s s u r v e y e d this threefold mission, they realized that their three goals s e e m e d e q u a l a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n t , yet the overall vision of all three goals w a s the s a m e : to w i n public trust. T h e y w e r e struck b y the vision's similarity to a three-legged stool. F r o m that p o i n t forward, w h e n e v e r m a n a g e r s discussed their vision, they b e g a n w i t h the complex m e t a p h o r of the three-legged stool. The m e t a p h o r w a s critical in h e l p i n g to clarify their thinking a n d their ability to m a n a g e a n d frame the m e a n i n g of their d e p a r t m e n t a l vision.

Stories and Myths A s an organization d e v e l o p s a history, values can b e p a c k a g e d a n d p e r f o r m e d t h r o u g h corporate stories a n d m y t h s . M y t h s can b e defined as u n q u e s t i o n e d , shared beliefs a b o u t the benefits of certain routines, techniques, or behaviors that are n o t s u p p o r t e d b y d e m o n s t r a t e d facts. Stories are often seen as closely linked to the m y t h (and are often the expression of the m y t h ) . Stories, w h i c h are often considered to b e " g o s sip," say a lot a b o u t h o w employees believe the organization "really" w o r k s . In addition, storytelling performances typify certain experiences as being w o r t h y of e m u l a t i o n or deserving of caution a n d t h u s call attention to possible future organizational experiences. The retelling of stories p r o v i d e s insight into the organization's culture a n d t h u s its o p erations. Therefore, stories are a powerful tool for reinforcing organizational a s s u m p t i o n s a n d teaching these a s s u m p t i o n s to organizational newcomers. M a n a g e r s obviously d o n o t h a v e complete control over the stories p a s s e d along in their organizations. Nevertheless, they can strategically use stories to " p u t a face" o n their corporate goals a n d vision. In addition, stories are m e m o r a b l e a n d vivid a n d create rapport. M a n y times, after p e o p l e forget organizational rules, regulations, a n d articulated goals, they nevertheless r e m e m b e r the story or anecdote that illustrated the point. Like all g o o d stories, corporate m y t h s usually include h e r o a n d villain characters, a conflict, a n d a resolution that teaches s o m e t y p e of lesson. Stories can also b e h u m o r o u s , w h i c h is often accomplished b y m a k i n g the story familiar to or consistent w i t h the audience's lives. Consider the following story relayed b y a senior 911 o p e r a t o r to another, less experienced operator. As told to u s , the story is g r u e s o m e , e v e n shocking. It nevertheless illustrates h o w a story can teach a n organizational lesson in a vivid a n d m e m o r a b l e fashion.

80

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Once a w o m a n called m e w h o found her husband hanging, and w a s sure he w a s still alive because w h e n she cut him d o w n , she heard him throw up. [But] that w a s because w h e n the noose w a s around his neck [it] had blocked the fluids, so w h e n she took it off, his body w a s emitting the fluids. Well, she assumed that w a s a sign he w a s still alive. You could hear her trying to give him mouth-to-mouth and y o u could hear him gurgling in the background, and to me, that just completely grossed m e out for one, but number two, I felt so bad Some of the things she w a s saying, y o u knew he w a s dead, but she wasn't, hadn't accepted it. But y o u have to stay on the line and listen to it whether y o u want to or not. . . . There are call-takers here that I think g o a little too much into personal aspects of the caller or getting too much information [But] y o u can't get involved. You just kinda put those things in perspective.

T h r o u g h the telling of this story, the senior 911 operator does several things. First, she conveys the tragedy inherent to the business. Second, she p u t s a face o n the issue a n d creates a vivid picture w i t h h e r w o r d s . Last, she conveys the lesson that 911 call takers cannot get too personally involved if they w a n t to survive in the job. In telling a story, the o p e r a t o r m a d e the lesson interesting a n d m e m o r a b l e to the trainee.

Traditions: Rites, Rituals, Ceremonies, and Celebrations Based o n their collective values a n d beliefs, organizations also h a v e recurring collective action patterns that symbolically p a t t e r n a n d define organizational life. Rites are collective activities in which employees initiate or conclude a given p h a s e of events. A n e x a m p l e of a d e v e l o p m e n t rite is w h e n General Motors initiated the Saturn project a n d h u n d r e d s of employees from all different levels m e t for several d a y s in a n off-site area to strategically s t u d y the future of the company. In contrast to the rite, m a n a g e r s u s e rituals to reproduce a n d confirm c o m m o n organizational traditions. The best e x a m p l e is a c o m m o n meeting. Mike P a c a n o w s k y a n d Nick O'Donnell-Trujillo (1983) categorize rituals as personal, task, social, or organizational (see Table 4.2). Personal r i t u a l s , p e r f o r m e d b y i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , s e r v e as " t r a d e m a r k " performances. They solidify e m p l o y e e s ' organizational identity as well as inform others a b o u t their identity. They are also the critical incidents that employees d r a w on w h e n they a t t e m p t to m a k e sense of particular organizational m e m b e r s a n d the culture to w h i c h they belong. Task rituals can be individual or collective. These types of rituals

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing Ύ

81

TABLE 4.2 Types of Rituals T)/pe of Ritual

Example of Ritual

Symbolic Implication

Personal

Each and every weekday morning, Jenny, owner of a local real estate office, walks around the office and says, "Good morning" to each employee.

Shows employees that management keeps in touch with and cares about what employees are doing.

Task

At the end of each month, Cathy Clavin, account executive at Stanley Public Relations, meets with her account assistants to go through their date books and time sheets to figure out how much time they collectively spent for each client. Depending on the hours and the work actually produced, Cathy figures out how many hours the client should actually be billed for.

Indicates to subordinates that they should keep detailed records about the time spent servicing clients, but when it comes to billing, there is flexibility beyond solely the hours spent. Quality of work is also important.

Social

Every Thursday night, a group of the ramp servicemen at City Airport go for a beer at one of the airport bars. Talk revolves around sports, women, and union politics.

Upholds a network among the workers outside of work. Identifies membership and status level within a particular organizational subculture.

Organizational

Each summer, the tenured sales people at ABC Marketing invite the new sales recruits to a golf match. Competition is severe and the new recruits have never won.

Represents a status hierarchy between new recruits and tenured employees. Teaches new employees that they should learn from and respect the longer tenured sales people.

c o n t i n u a l l y reveal t h e d a y - t o - d a y r o u t i n e s t h a t " g e t t h e job d o n e . " Social rituals,

s u c h as e a t i n g l u n c h o u t s i d e o n t h e c o m p a n y ' s p a t i o , are carried

o u t w i t h o u t explicit connection to t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s h a v e t h e effect of solidifying o r g a n i z a t i o n a l identification a n d a sense of b e l o n g i n g to s u b c u l t u r e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l rituals, s u c h as c o m p a n y picnics, b o a r d of directors m e e t i n g s , or executive m e e t i n g s , are largely a n a l o g o u s to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l rites. These p e r f o r m a n c e s reveal global features of a n - o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s culture. Two o t h e r m o r e formal e v e n t s t h a t establish t i m e p a t t e r n s a n d t r a d i tions in o r g a n i z a t i o n s are ceremonies a n d celebrations. T h e c e r e m o n y is

82

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

a formal event that usually expresses a sense of organizational tradition a n d history. Examples of ceremonies include initiations, g r a d u a t i o n s , anniversaries, the formal launching of a product, a n d the o p e n i n g of a n e w branch. The celebration is a less formal ceremony w h e r e m o r e m u n d a n e activities take place. A n example w o u l d b e a c o m p a n y ' s a n n u a l h o l i d a y party. T h r o u g h rites, rituals, ceremonies, a n d celebrations, organizational leaders can m a i n t a i n consistency a n d tradition in the organization that communicates corporate vision a n d goals.

Slogans, Jargon, and Catchphrases Every organization h a s its o w n special vocabulary that is peculiar to its particular profession or organizational culture. In this vocabulary, w e find jargon (words unfamiliar to p e o p l e outside the culture), slogans, a n d colloquial catchphrases. They are p o p u l a r w o r d choices because, like the metaphor, they b r i n g a u n i q u e "insider" m e a n i n g to the concepts they represent. A s is the case w i t h all discursive instruments, m a n a g e r s cannot alw a y s completely control the v o c a b u l a r y of their e m p l o y e e s . In fact, jargon is often specifically u s e d because its m e a n i n g is obtuse a n d indecipherable b y outsiders. For example, o n a commercial cruise ship, employees referred to passengers n o t as "guests," as m a n a g e m e n t w o u l d h a v e liked, b u t rather as " p u n t e r s . " T h r o u g h the u s e of this term, e m ployees w e r e able to depersonalize their association w i t h the passengers a n d treat t h e m as faceless c o n s u m i n g robots. We see a similar t y p e of d e p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n o c c u r r i n g w h e n d o c t o r s refer to their p a t i e n t s as " r i n g e r s " (as in h a n g i n g a r o u n d the ring of the drain, since they are alm o s t " d o w n the d r a i n " ) , a n d w h e n 911 call takers refer to callers as "schizoids." T h r o u g h framing, however, m a n a g e m e n t can h e l p modify the interpretations of others. In one example, a n e w b e a u t y salon o w n e r w a n t e d to create a sense of high-class style in h e r salon. She d i d so, in part, b y requiring all of h e r employees to speak of their p a t r o n s as "clients" rather t h a n as "customers." The w o r d "client" is traditionally associated w i t h important, long-term, business transactions, w h e r e a s " c u s t o m e r " b r i n g s forth the image of a transitory s u p e r m a r k e t patron. T h r o u g h the u s e of the w o r d "client," employees w e r e inculcated w i t h the v a l u e of b u i l d i n g long-term, m u t u a l l y respectful relationships w i t h the s h o p ' s p a t r o n s .

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing ¥

83

A catchphrase or slogan can also d o a lot to frame or s u m m a r i z e a g r o u p of ideas. O n e of the m o s t p o p u l a r conceptions in the 1990s h a s b e e n " c h a n g e . " Fairhurst a n d Sarr (1996) discuss h o w Bill Clinton capitalized o n this trend in thinking w h e n his c a m p a i g n t e a m devised his 1992 c a m p a i g n slogan, " D o n ' t stop thinking a b o u t t o m o r r o w . " T h r o u g h the use of this slogan, Clinton w a s able to p o r t r a y a t h e m e of a brighter future. The slogan also created a n e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e c h a n g e could only b e t h o u g h t of as good. The A m e r i c a n public w a s p r e s e n t e d w i t h t w o possibilities: Be a p a r t of progress b y voting for Clinton or b e a p a r t of stagnation b y voting for George Bush. This dualistic choice, of course, w a s merely a n illusion of the slogan. Nevertheless, it w a s a n illusion that h e l p e d w i n Clinton the presidency.

Artifacts The concept of artifacts is generally u s e d to describe the physical vestiges of a n organization, for example, the organization's b u i l d i n g , e q u i p m e n t , p r o d u c t s , a n d so on. Artifacts are c o m m o n l y the m o s t concrete symbolic elements in a n organizational culture. The architecture, interior design, a n d physical layout of a b u i l d i n g say a lot a b o u t h o w the organization values creativity, control, a n d hierarchy. For instance, the s e t u p of a m e e t i n g r o o m often symbolizes the n a t u r e of b u s i n e s s c o n d u c t e d therein. A r o u n d table a n d comfortable chairs symbolize that the p e o p l e in the m e e t i n g are equals a n d that the m e e t i n g is informal. In contrast, a long thin rectangular table w i t h a " h e a d " chair that is bigger or different t h a n the others indicates a m o r e formal hierarchy a n d a m o r e serious gathering. M a n a g e r s are wise to consider h o w the physicalities of their organization reinforce (or contradict) the goals a n d vision of their organization.

Contrast The u s e of contrast allows m a n a g e r s to describe a p r o g r a m or subject b y explaining w h a t it is not In v a g u e situations it m a y b e difficult or impossible to describe w h a t the c u r r e n t situation is. C o n t r a s t allows m a n a g e r s to u s e opposites or alternatives to frame a situation. For instance, the current culture m a y b e indecipherable, conflicted, a n d confused, so a p e r s o n m a y describe it as lacking organization, e n t h u s i a s m , or vision.

84

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Consider the following hypothetical m a n a g e r / e m p l o y e e conversation w h e r e the m a n a g e r uses contrast to describe the n e w participative type of m a n a g e m e n t style the organization is w o r k i n g to develop: Employee: "I just don't get it. I don't know what I'm supposed to do anymore. No one tells me and then I get frustrated when I do it wrong." Manager "Well, that's all part of the new participative management." Employee: "What's that all about?" Manager "Well, we're not going to be telling you exactly what to do anymore. No direct orders, no getting in trouble if you don't do it exactly how we want it. Now you're going to have to use your own initiative." Employee: "So we're not going to have the weekly goal meetings anymore?" Manager. "We'll still have meetings, but there won't be a set agenda. Instead it will be more like brainstorming, with everyone involved." In this example, w e see h o w a n a m b i g u o u s concept, such as participative m a n a g e m e n t , can b e m a d e clearer b y contrasting it w i t h s o m e t h i n g it is not

Spin Spin, defined as the ability to p o r t r a y a certain person, p r o g r a m , or idea in a positive or negative light, is probably the riskiest of framing tools. M a n a g e r s can responsibly use positive spin to frame a p r o g r a m (such as their vision) in t e r m s of its strengths, a n d negative spin to frame other p r o g r a m s (such as c o m p e t i n g subcultures) in terms of their w e a k nesses. Nevertheless, spinning can create a negative response w h e n the a m o u n t of spin begins to d e p a r t substantially from the reality of the situation at h a n d . In other w o r d s , w h e n the difference b e t w e e n spin a n d reality becomes large, credibility is lost. Usually, w h e n w e h e a r the w o r d spin, images of velvet-tongued p u b licity people c o m e to m i n d . Indeed, w e speak of p e o p l e w h o are especially g o o d at the art in a derogatory manner, calling t h e m "spin doctors." Washington of late is filled with them. Journalists w h o covered the Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Q u a y l e debate s p o k e of the excessive a m o u n t of spin taking place. As the CBS reporter Leslie Stahl said, "We reporters w e r e m o r e t h a n just s p u n tonight, w e w e r e twirled, w e w e r e twisted, w e w e r e

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing Τ

85

Cuisinarted" (Brydon, 1989, as cited in Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996, p. 115). A l t h o u g h spin can b e u s e d in a responsible and helpful manner, it can easily become a detriment w h e n it crosses the line to blatant exaggeration.

Exercise

4.2

* What discursive instruments (e.g., stories, myths, metaphors, etc.) do you currently see working in organizations or groups in your life? Are the framing tools consistent with articulated goals? Do these discursive instruments make it difficult for alternative conceptions to emerge? *

How can discursive instruments promote one line of thought over another? Provide an example, real or hypothetical, to illustrate your answer. How, if at all, could this benefit the interests of one organizational coalition over another?

| ^ The Dangers of Framing We have already briefly discussed h o w managers d o not always have direct control over h o w discursive tools are used. We have also explained h o w managers can lose credibility if they exaggerate a positive or negative spin to the point of not being in touch with reality. In this section w e discuss t w o other dangers of framing.

That Which Highlights Also Marginalizes In this chapter w e have focused on h o w managers can use different discursive tools to manage the w a y others see the world. A s discussed, language can fundamentally create or modify the w a y people v i e w reality. This can be a g o o d thing in business w h e n leaders use language to create a reality that keeps their business competitive and is fair to employees. Nevertheless, as much as language can highlight one w a y of viewing the world, it simultaneously makes it harder to see other, p o s sibly more valid, w a y s of viewing it. For instance, if w e take another look at Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow," it obviously highlights

86

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

the importance of the future. Nevertheless, as Fairhurst a n d Sarr (1996) note, it also p u s h e s aside the importance of learning from o u r past. It m a y also h a v e also discouraged voters to investigate Clinton's p e r s o n a l past. Likewise, a l t h o u g h the aforementioned m e t a p h o r of the threelegged stool d o e s a g o o d job representing i n t e r d e p e n d e n t s u p p o r t , it d o e s little to speak of innovation or the n e e d to take care of oneself. A s discussed, m y t h s a n d stories serve as core beliefs that are rarely questioned or tested, and as such, they function as a powerful, sometimes insidious t y p e of control. For instance, a p o p u l a r m y t h in Western organizations is that people can "pull themselves u p b y the b o o t s t r a p s " a n d can m a k e it "to the t o p " if they just try h a r d e n o u g h . Yet the data d o n o t s u p p o r t the fact that everyone h a s the s a m e statistical o p p o r t u n i t y for organizational success. Because the b o o t s t r a p m y t h is so pervasive in Western society, however, people take it for granted that a n y p e r s o n — despite that p e r s o n ' s race, class, or gender—can succeed if h e or she only tries h a r d e n o u g h . According to the m y t h , if a p e r s o n does n o t succeed, h e or she just did not try hard enough. This type of silent assumption can lead to continued discriminatory structures in the workplace. M y t h s a n d stories, a l t h o u g h powerful framing tools, can serve to obscure i m p o r t a n t realities in organizations w h e n they are u n q u e s t i o n e d or u n e x a m i n e d . In Deetz's (1997) case s t u d y of knowledge-intensive w o r k e r s , w e also see several framing d a n g e r s as well as benefits. The descriptors of "consultancy" versus " f u n d e d " a n d integrated" versus "smokestack" services w e r e n o r m a l i z e d in the workplace studied. T h r o u g h their repeated u n q u e s t i o n e d use, the contrasts b e c a m e taken for g r a n t e d a n d obscured discussion options. Admittedly, the concepts of consultancy a n d integ r a t e d solutions h a d clear values a n d considerable rhetorical power. Nevertheless, as w i t h all language, the terms w e r e partial in w h a t they highlighted, w h a t they covered u p , w h a t they misrecognized, a n d h o w they seemed neutral yet favored particular interests a n d groups of people. F r a m i n g instruments are i m p o r t a n t tools for c o m m u n i c a t i n g organizational vision, b u t they can also close off certain discursive options. In choosing framing tools, m a n a g e r s s h o u l d analyze h o w their l a n g u a g e b o t h accents a n d marginalizes different ideas, values, a n d g r o u p s of people.

Avoiding Mixed Messages A l t h o u g h organizational leaders h a v e the time to w o r k a n d r e w o r k formal organizational visions until they s o u n d exactly right, the s a m e

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing ¥

87

advantage is not available for the practice of framing. Because framing is often a spontaneous process, managers must be extra careful to avoid sending mixed messages. Managers must ask themselves whether the metaphors, stories, vocabulary, rituals, and artifacts they use in the organization are consistent with each other. For example, if participative management is the vision, the leader may want to replace closed-door offices with open-air cubicles, rethink the ritual of top management eating out at restaurants while middle managers eat at their desk, replace the use of competitive sports and war metaphors with those that refer to family and teamwork, or quit labeling a certain group of people in a w a y that shuts them off from high-level strategic planning decisions (such as calling computer people "techies"). If different framing tools contradict each other, employees can become confused and disillusioned about the organizational vision. Of course, it m a y not be possible for managers to plan out every framing opportunity so it is perfectly in line with vision. A n important first step, however, is just being cognizant of all the framing opportunities available and analyzing h o w those opportunities are used, abused, or ignored.

^

Recognizing Framing Opportunities

Through the creation of a vision, organizational leaders can m a p out for themselves the goals and values of their organizational ideal. A vision, however, is only truly effective w h e n it is communicated to others, and this is done through framing. When d o opportunities for framing present themselves? Gaps in understanding from employees can be used by leaders to instill or reinforce company vision. Unfortunately, many managers v i e w these gaps as problems rather than framing opportunities. The most natural time to clarify organizational goals, however, is w h e n employees are confused and seeking direction from management.

Using Knowledge Gaps as Framing Opportunities For employees to identify with a company's vision and culture, they must not only understand n e w ideas, but they must also see h o w n e w programs and ideas relate to the job. It is important that employees

88

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

u n d e r s t a n d h o w n e w p r o g r a m s fit with old structures. C o r p o r a t e leaders can encourage e n t h u s i a s m a n d buy-in to n e w p r o g r a m s b y asking e m ployees to devise future steps in i m p l e m e n t i n g goals. Together, these tasks can b e accomplished in large p a r t t h r o u g h m a n a g e m e n t c o m m u nication a n d framing. For instance, t h r o u g h v i b r a n t stories a n d m e t a p h o r s , leaders can spread e n t h u s i a s m a b o u t a n e w p r o g r a m ; w h e n e m p l o y e e s display confusion a b o u t h o w n e w goals affect their d e p a r t m e n t , leaders can take this time to reinforce the c o m p a n y vision a n d explain directly h o w the e m ployees are an integral p a r t of it; w h e n e m p l o y e e s ask a b o u t future organizational systems, leaders can frame these projects in terms of future vision.

Understanding the Interpretive Frames of Others To h e l p others e x p a n d their interpretive frames to e n c o m p a s s organizationally e s p o u s e d values, m a n a g e r s s h o u l d take the time to u n d e r stand a n d b e sensitive to others' interpretive frames. In other w o r d s , like a n y persuasive speaker, leaders m u s t k n o w their audience. By taking the time to u n d e r s t a n d others' interpretive frameworks, e m p l o y e e s ' k n o w l e d g e g a p s can b e seen as opportunities a n d the occasions for framing b e c o m e endless—whether they occur d u r i n g formal meetings, in the elevator, or at the c o m p a n y softball g a m e .

Planning to Be Spontaneous O n e of the m o s t c o m m o n d i l e m m a s a b o u t framing is that it cannot b e completely p l a n n e d out. Nevertheless, w i t h s o m e practice a n d forethought, m a n a g e r s can get into the habit of framing. M a n a g e r s s h o u l d envision future situations that are likely to recur in their organization. They can d o this b y using past incidents, meetings, a n d conversations as m o d e l s of probable future ones. T h r o u g h p a y i n g attention to recurring c o m m u n i c a t i v e situations, m a n a g e r s can see w h e r e linkages can b e m a d e b e t w e e n everyday conversations a n d the organizational vision. The following questions, suggested b y Schein (1992) a n d Fairhurst a n d

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing

¥

89

Sarr (1996, p. 164), can b e used as a guide b y leaders to plan for "spontaneous" framing opportunities: 1. What types of situations continually recur in my organization? 2. Where do employees get their information, and how can I shape this information source? 3. In what areas are employees confused or misinformed, and how can I clarify issues? 4. When and why do employees complain, and what do they complain about? 5. When do employees tell exaggerated stories or offer fallacious reasoning? How can I counter this? 6. How can I provide critical socialization opportunities for new employees? 7. What types of rituals and organizational crises punctuate the organization? How can I frame them in a way that promotes organizational vision?

After asking themselves these questions and analyzing their framing opportunities, managers should trust their gut instinct on framing opportunities. A s with any n e w behavior, w h e n people first prepare for framing opportunities, they may seem awkward and anything but spontaneous. This force of habit, in turn, makes it possible for managers to respond as if they had time to prepare. The only w a y to become skillful at framing is through trial and error and the continual communication with each other to figure out n e w w a y s of understanding organizational concepts or programs. Through continuous planning and communication, framing will become more natural and spontaneous. This chapter has detailed the many different w a y s language can create and modify interpretive frameworks and h o w framing is the integral counterpart to organizational visioning. We have explained the different discursive tools managers can use to frame situations so they are consistent with corporate goals and warned of several dangers of framing. N o w the question is, where d o w e g o from here? Although every leader finds his or her o w n w a y of going about the art of framing, the following exercise provides some general tips for getting started.

90

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Exercise

43

•

What framing opportunities present themselves on a regular basis in an organization or group you're involved in? Do you believe the leaders in these organizations make use of framing opportunities?

•

Choose a recent situation in a company or group you are involved in where meaning was contested. You might choose a particular problem and pair it with a goal or organizational ideal (e.g., maybe an organization is having a problem with regular attendance and the ideal is that at least 90% of members attend each meeting). -

List key elements that are necessary for others to understand the present problem and the desired ideal. Create word images you could use to describe the events to ensure clarity, consistency, and comprehension.

-

Formulate a parallel list of discursive framing tools that correlate with the descriptions for the "ideal."

-

As part of this list, attempt to devise a complex metaphor that will illustrate the ideal you are reaching for. Brainstorm on ways that other discursive tools, such as stories, slogans, rituals, spin, and contrast, can be incorporated in the metaphor.

Review Questions Ψ

W h y is the process of interpretation s o critical to communication?

Τ

W h y is framing an important leadership tool?

W

H o w does framing relate to visioning and to the larger cultural concept?

Τ

H o w does language help to "socially construct" people's w a y s of thinking about events?

Ψ

What is the value of considering framing tools (e.g., metaphors, stories) as "instruments" rather than as components that "constitute" culture?

Τ

What are the advantages and disadvantages of different framing tools?

Guiding Interpretations and the Art of Framing Τ

91

Discussion Questions ¥

Given that people often interpret words and events differently, what are the possible costs of not taking into account the interpretive frames of others?

•

If the message sent is often not the message received, who is most responsible for aligning meanings, the sender or receiver? Explain.

•

How are the meanings of events and decisions shaped in your organization? What do you see as the benefits and costs of this way of doing it?

•

Think of a time when the meaning of an event or decision was not managed well in an organization or group you belong to. What were the consequences? How could the meaning have been managed differently?

| ^ References and Recommended Readings American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (1992). (3rd ed.). Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin. Clair, R. (1993). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: H e g e m o n y and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60,113-136. Cook, S. (Director). (1985). Great speeches (Vol. 1) [videorecording]. Greenwood, IN: Educational Video Group. Deetz, S. (1997). The business concept and managerial control in knowledge-intensive work: A case of discursive power. Case studies in organizational communication: 2 (pp. 173-202). N e w York Guilford Press. Fairhurst, G., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mawhinney, T. C. (1998). Editorial. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18,1-6. Pacanowsky, M., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N . (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50,127-147. Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (1996). Refraining and organizational action. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9,12-25. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

^

Suggested Case Study

Deetz, S. (1997). The business concept and managerial control in knowledge-intensive work: A case of discursive power. In B. D . Sypher (ed.). Case studies in organizational communication (Vol. 2, p p . 173-202). N e w York: Guilford Press.

5 τ Employee Participation and Cultural Change Overview Up to this point much of the discussion has focused on the direct activities of the leader in building a business and changing or shaping a culture. But increasingly, business leaders have come to understand the value of widespread employee participation in decision making and in change processes. Commanding visions are often best achieved through discussion processes involving organization members from several places and levels in the organization. Furthermore, the most common changes taking place in organizations today include increased employee participation. The move to most versions of T Q M and teams requires a culture of participation where management functions differently and decisions and responsibility are diffused in the organization. Wider participation in creating a culture of participation may seem an obvious need but is often not the case. Management direction alone of cultural change or of participation and empowerment rarely succeeds. This chapter discusses the reasons for the move to greater employee participation, introduces management philosophy changes necessary in a move to increased employee decision making, considers the situations where participation appears most important, introduces core issues in em92

Employee Participation and Cultural Change

V

93

powerment from a cultural perspective, provides methods of joint visioning and change, and discusses communication skills necessary for effective participation.

Key Objectives of the Chapter •

To understand the forces pushing organizations to wider participation by members and external stakeholders

V To recognize the differences in management philosophies when governed by hierarchical control or when governed by participation •

To identify situations where participation is of value and who should be involved

V

To understand the nature of empowerment

V To be able to foster greater initiative from others V To be able to use various form of participation in cultural change efforts •

To develop basic interpersonal and collaborative skills to enhance organizational dialogue

Questions to Consider V When have you felt that your ideas really mattered to an organization of which you are a part? What did others do to let you know that? How did it change how you felt and acted during your involvement? •

Under what circumstances do you feel organizational members take initiative? What hampers the taking of initiative?

V Who do you feel is most invested in the well-being of an organization with which you are familiar? Why are they invested in this way? •

What do you think of empowerment? When has it been real? What were the consequences?

•

Do you feel most meetings in organizations are productive? Why or why not?

V

Do you feel most meetings are primarily directed toward discussion where people express or advocate their point of view or inquiry where people attempt to acquire a greater understanding?

94

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Greater e m p l o y e e participation in all aspects of r u n n i n g organizations seems to b e ensured in the future. N o single quality of m a n a g e m e n t p r a c tice is m o r e highly correlated w i t h success. W h e n d o n e well, n o single m a n a g e m e n t c h a n g e h a s m o r e consistently led to i m p r o v e d perform a n c e . Nonetheless, motives for the m o v e to greater e m p l o y e e participation are often m i x e d a n d implementations h a v e n o t b e e n uniformly successful. Successful initiation of a culture of participation a n d participation in cultural change requires s o m e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of (a) the forces leading to participation, (b) challenges to d o m i n a n t values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d (c) the characteristics of situations w h e r e participation is especially important.

Forces Leading to Greater Employee

Participation

M a n y of the forces leading to a d v a n t a g e s for greater e m p l o y e e p a r ticipation are similar to those leading to m a n a g i n g culture. M a r k e t s are m o r e turbulent. Creativity a n d innovation are m o r e important. Traditional surveillance a n d control are m o r e difficult a n d costly. Additionally, the following are of special interest:

Globalization. C o m p a n i e s often design, manufacture, a n d sell in several different c o u n t r i e s . In such a context, the n e e d for b o t h i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d interdependence increase while the time available to coordinate activities decreases. Hierarchical structures are too slow a n d c u m b e r s o m e to m e e t the situationally specific n e e d s for a decision. Information Availability. In t r a d i t i o n a l w o r k p l a c e s m a n a g e r s w e r e often primarily collectors, sorters, a n d diffusers of information. M u c h of their time w a s spent p r o v i d i n g interpretations of data. Information technologies allow instant sharing of relevant information, m a k i n g possible m o r e context-specific interpretations. With available information, e m ployees can better m a n a g e their o w n activities if g u i d e d b y s h a r e d cultural interpretative processes.

Employee Participation and Cultural Change

V

95

Worker and Work Process Changes. The presence of a h i g h l y skilled workforce usually m e a n s that e m p l o y e e s are m o r e desirous a n d capable of m a k i n g g o o d decisions. Today, i n d i v i d u a l qualities a c c o u n t for a greater p a r t of the v a l u e a d d e d in a w o r k stream. A s technologies replace m a n u a l labor, time a n d talent can b e better u s e d for decision m a k i n g . Consumer Demand and Customization. A s the c o n s u m e r h a s acquired a greater variety of offerings a n d greater ability to s h o p a r o u n d , the n e e d for quick, c u s t o m i z e d responses to customers is greater. Often only the frontline p e r s o n h a s the capacity to p r o v i d e that. Such a n e m p l o y e e m u s t b e e m p o w e r e d to b e able to r e s p o n d . Employee Commitment and Loyalty. A s s h o w n earlier, the n e w social contract at w o r k h a s p r o d u c e d a n e m p l o y e e w h o h a s to look o u t for his or h e r o w n interests. A t the s a m e time the v a l u e of key e m p l o y e e s a n d t h e costs of self-serving b e h a v i o r s h a v e b e c o m e greater. N o t h i n g increases c o m m i t m e n t a n d loyalty like participation in decision m a k i n g . To b e listened to a n d to h a v e a stake in the outcomes are powerful forces. Payoffs. N o force h a s b e e n m o r e powerful in the m o v e to e m p l o y e e participation t h a n the payoffs c o m p a n i e s h a v e received. P r o d u c t quality, productivity, r e d u c e d absenteeism, a n d satisfaction h a v e consistently correlated w i t h h i g h levels of participation. In m a n y cases, e m p l o y e e s simply m a k e better decisions t h a n m a n a g e r s . They are often closer to the factors influencing success, they represent greater decisional diversity, a n d they are often m o r e willing to p u t the health of the c o m p a n y a h e a d of p e r s o n a l interests.

Changes in the Conception of Governance Despite the payoffs a n d pressures for higher levels of e m p l o y e e p a r ticipation, business leaders h a v e n o t b e e n uniform in the degree or m a n n e r in w h i c h t h a n h a v e e m b r a c e d it. M a n y h a v e i m p l e m e n t e d p r o g r a m s of greater involvement h o p i n g for greater loyalty a n d c o m m i t m e n t w i t h o u t seeking g e n u i n e input. Such a n a p p r o a c h finally b r e e d s cynicism a n d diminishes the v a l u e of e m p l o y e e insights. Patricia McLagan a n d Christo N e l (1995) h a v e s h o w n convincingly that if participation is to truly p a y off it cannot b e partial. The successful m o v e from bureaucracy a n d authoritarianism to participation requires

96

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

TABLE 5.1 Differences in Hierarchical Control a n d Participation Hierarchical Control

Participation

Managers think, e m p l o y e e s do.

People in various roles think about the same things from different perspectives.

People in senior positions manage.

People self-manage wherever possible. Senior managers coach and facilitate.

People at the top matter most. Many systems serve them and their information needs.

Everyone's rights, accountability, and dignity are supported and honored.

Knowledge is an important asset for personal power. Teaching m o v e s d o w n w a r d .

Learning and sharing k n o w l e d g e are key values. People teach each other in all directions.

Shareholders are primary or exclusive stakeholders

Customers, shareholders, e m p l o y e e s , and future generations are stakeholders.

SOURCE: Based on McLagan and Nel (1995, p. 25).

a d e e p c h a n g e in concepts of g o v e r n a n c e a n d a s s u m p t i o n r e g a r d i n g the m a n a g e m e n t process. These i m p a c t o n nearly every activity in t h e w o r k place. Table 5.1 c a p t u r e s the f u n d a m e n t a l differences.

Exercise

5.1

•

Describe places in an organization you know where member participation has increased. What do you feel were the dominant motives for increased participation? How did underlying values and motives influence how participation was practiced and received by members? Were important benefits received by the organization? What type of benefits?

•

Describe the places where hierarchical control and participation exist in your organization. Does one dominate? What are the underlying values or assumptions about people and the world that keep each in place?

Times and Places Where Really Pays Off

Participation

A l t h o u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n clearly h a s g e n e r a l payoffs, t h e payoff is o p t i m i z e d u n d e r certain situations.

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Ύ 97 Need for Diverse Insights and Forms of Knowledge. Member participation is especially important w h e n successful choices require diverse insights and forms of knowledge. Such insights and knowledge forms are often acquired experientially and are hard for the management to k n o w or understand fully. Cross-functional teams have been very successful in these contexts. Cultural change efforts nearly always require such diversity. Specific understandings that exist in different parts of the company can only be well represented b y those there. Need for Innovation and Creativity. Innovation and creativity are highly dependent on diversity. A s much as leaders encourage others to think outside the box, they and those close to them are not often the best at it. Their w a y s of thinking and shared sources of information often produce a type of groupthink in even the best intentioned. TTdnking out of the box requires others w h o really think differently. Diverse individuals m a y each have his or her box, but synergy often arises as different boxes collide. N o t all organizational problems require innovative, creative thinking, but those that d o require participation. Need for High Levels of Commitment. During the development of n e w products, transitions and crises, and cultural change, high levels of commitment are needed. When organizational members participate, they are able to take ownership of the processes and activities that help them play a role in fulfilling the vision. Most members have a need to get more out of work than a paycheck. We all want to feel that w e are accomplishing something important, that w e are making a difference. When members of an organization feel a commitment to the goals of the organization, they feel as though by helping the organization succeed, they are able to not only be a part of a successful enterprise but also help accomplish something important.

Exercise

5.2

Describe some decisions in your organization that would have benefited from greater participation. Who would you have involved? How would you have ensured adequate diversity of perspectives?

98

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

Who Should

Participate?

M o s t of the discussion in this b o o k h a s focused a n d will c o n t i n u e to focus on selecting e m p l o y e e s w h o s h o u l d e n g a g e in c h a n g e processes. Identification w i t h the mission a n d goals of the organization is increased w h e n the vision is co-created w i t h organizational m e m b e r s . Different m e m b e r s of the organization h a v e key insights a n d contacts that aid vision formation a n d change. But i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are n o t formally organizational m e m b e r s also h a v e a stake in the organization's direction. Including t h e m in d e v e l o p m e n t of a n d identification w i t h the vision increases t h e s u p p o r t the o r g a n i z a t i o n receives from a b r o a d e r constituency a n d the b r o a d e n e d k n o w l e d g e b a s e from w h i c h decisions are made. Beyond those w h o h a v e an economic stake in the success of a n organization, there are m a n y others w h o benefit from or are h a r m e d b y the organization's activities. The p r o d u c t s p r o d u c e d or services p r o v i d e d affect a w i d e r a n g e of people. Identifying w h o is affected b y the daily operations of the organization helps identify other i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e perspectives s h o u l d h e l p s h a p e the organization's d e v e l o p m e n t . O n e can ask, h o w d o p r o d u c t i o n processes affect those that live in the comm u n i t i e s w h e r e the organization's sites are located? To w h o m are services p r o v i d e d ? W h a t effect d o e s the organization h a v e o n local envir o n m e n t s ? H o w d o d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s s t a n d to i m p a c t different populations?

Exercise

53

Think of an organization with which you are associated and consider the following questions. By answering these questions you can begin to assess who might have a vested interest in helping to shape the direction of your organization. Once you have done this, the challenge becomes the development of a realistic plan for including them in the visioning process without irreparably sacrificing the efficiency of the process. *

Who has an economic stake in the success of your organization?

•

How is the local community affected by your operations?

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Ύ 99 •

What is the scope of the company's impact (local, national, global)?

•

W h o is affected by the humanistic activities engaged in?

•

What is the environmental impact of organizational activities?

•

Who may benefit or suffer from that impact?

•

How do company policies impact the families of employees?

Identifying key stakeholders is i m p o r t a n t for several reasons. O n t h e practical front, stakeholders s u c h as stockholders, local c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d contracting p a r t n e r s h a v e a n economic interest in the success of the organization. These stakeholders w a n t to k n o w that t h e vision that t h e organization h a s for the future is w o r t h y of a financial i n v e s t m e n t a n d is likely t o b r i n g t h e m d i v i d e n d s of s o m e sort. T h e m o r e identified they are w i t h the vision of t h e organization, the m o r e stable a resource they will be. S o m e stocks are b o u g h t a n d t r a d e d daily b a s e d o n m a r k e t t r e n d s w i t h the sole intent of m a k i n g profits. Some stocks, however, are h e l d over the long t e r m b e c a u s e the stockholders h a v e a n e n d u r i n g faith in the vision of the organization. They are willing to w e a t h e r those times that are n o t as strong or lucrative b e c a u s e they h a v e faith that the longt e r m vision is one that will b r i n g r e w a r d s in the long r u n . Today, m o r e a n d m o r e public policy decisions are b e i n g m a d e at the c o r p o r a t e a n d organizational levels. W h e n these decisions b e a r o n c o m m u n i t y life, economic systems, a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l health, those w h o s t a n d to b e affected b y the o u t c o m e s m u s t b e involved in t h e decisionm a k i n g processes. A l t h o u g h it is generally unrealistic to expect to inc l u d e all such stakeholders in every decision that is m a d e w i t h o u t sacrificing great degrees of efficiency, initial i n v o l v e m e n t in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the vision can p r o v i d e valuable insight into the w a n t s , n e e d s , a n d concerns of a b r o a d stakeholder constituency. W h e n stakeholders h e l p to s h a p e the direction of the organization a n d that organization is true to its c o m m i t m e n t to u s e its vision as a f r a m e w o r k for effective decision m a k i n g , a w a r e n e s s of a r a n g e of perspectives is b r o u g h t to b e a r o n each decision m a d e . This can, in turn, further e n h a n c e the c o m m i t m e n t of organizational m e m b e r s . A l t h o u g h e m p l o y e e s h a v e a financial stake in t h e success of the organization a n d w a n t to feel that the w o r k that they are d o i n g is

100

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

meaningful a n d important, they generally h a v e a b r o a d e r stake in the o r g a n i z a t i o n as well. M e m b e r s typically live in the c o m m u n i t i e s in w h i c h the organization is located, a n d their lives a n d those of their families are affected b y organizational decisions. M e m b e r s w h o feel that they are w o r k i n g for a n o r g a n i z a t i o n that is h e l p i n g to c o n t r i b u t e to t h e g r o w t h , stability, a n d health of the c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h they live are m o r e likely to take p r i d e in the w o r k that they d o . This can also e n h a n c e feelings of p r i d e in a n d c o m m i t m e n t to the organization in w h i c h they are e m p l o y e d . W h e n key stakeholders are considered a n d consulted in the process of developing a vision for the organization, it is reflected in the culture of the workplace a n d manifest in the c o m m i t m e n t of m e m b e r s . W h e n vision is lacking or the vision is n o t shared, the organization m a y often struggle w i t h lack of focus, frequent turnover, or quality assurance p r o b lems. (See Table 5.2.)

Questions Regarding Empowerment Few d o u b t that the time of c o m m a n d a n d control hierarchies is past. M e m b e r s are being asked a n d allowed to take initiative, b e creative, a n d accept direct responsibility for their decisions. Discussion of these changes often goes u n d e r the b r o a d t e r m empowerment. W h a t e m p o w e r m e n t m e a n s , however, is anything b u t consistent across organizations or people in organizations. I m p l e m e n t a t i o n h a s often b e e n difficult a n d m e t w i t h resistance at all levels. M a n y of the p r o b l e m s a n d lack of payoff arise from the different concepts of a n d motives for e m p o w e r m e n t . The presence of a strong culture aids the m o v e to e m p o w e r m e n t . Widely shared values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s aid coordination of i n d e p e n d e n t decision m a k i n g a n d h e l p u p p e r m a n a g e r s trust other e m p l o y e e s to fulfill organizational objectives. But a strong culture, especially if conformity is expected as a cultural feature, can u n d e r m i n e the innovative a n d diversity values of e m p o w e r m e n t , hence reducing organizational a d a p tation a n d learning. E m p o w e r m e n t can aid cultural change a n d the m o v e to a m o r e innovative strong culture. H o w all this w o r k s o u t is largely b a s e d o n a n s w e r s to central q u e s t i o n s . Robert Q u i n n a n d G r e t c h e n Spreitzer (1997) d e v e l o p the following questions of concern:

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Y 101 TABLE 5.2 E m p l o y e e Participation In Workplace Decisions What Are the Payoffs? Higher quality decisions (the biggest benefit), especially in situations w h e r e creativity and innovation are critical. A reduced n e e d for directly supervising and monitoring w o r k behavior. Reduced turnover d u e to the increased commitment of employees. Increased product quality and customization of products for customers. A greater sense of well-being a m o n g e m p l o y e e s , w h o usually take better skills and attitudes h o m e to their communities and families. A n emergence of w o r k i n g arrangements more sensitive to the n e e d s of w o m e n and culturally diverse groups. A n increase in the total organizational learning and skills of e m p l o y e e s and management.

Signs of Partial or Incomplete Participation There's no connection b e t w e e n participation activities and reward structures. Management talks a lot about e m p o w e r i n g people as if this is something that can or needs to b e d o n e to people. To justify participation activities, managers stress the need for b u y i n g into the corporate ideology or increasing e m p l o y e e s ' loyalty or commitment. Increasing the quality of decisions is not used as a justification. Workers only participate in decision making regarding minor issues or those involving the plan for executing higher-up decisions. Participation groups lack diversity or are "safe." The c o m p a n y uses participation forums primarily for letting off steam rather than decision making. Decisions—but not responsibility—are assigned d o w n w a r d . Key information for decision making is not shared. Participation programs are s u s p e n d e d during change and crisis.

Before Committing to Participation Make sure y o u really w a n t it! Commit to the long-term. It may well take 18 months or s o to see a payoff. Make sure everyone gets appropriate training. Every person in the c o m p a n y has to overcome years in authoritarian-style training. Training displays m a n a g e ment's commitment to a participatory workplace. Participation skills are not natural; they are acquired over time. H a v e your program regularly assessed b y outsiders.

What Do You Mean by Empowerment? Leading executives clearly differ o n w h a t they m e a n b y e m p o w e r m e n t . Q u i n n a n d Spreitzer (1997) found t w o distinctly different positions in their interviews w i t h executives. They are characterized in the five contrasts s h o w n in Table 5.3 for mechanistic a n d organic m o d e l s .

102

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

TABLE 5.3 Mechanistic a n d Organic A p p r o a c h e s to E m p o w e r m e n t Mechanistic

Organic

Start at the top

Start at the bottom with e m p l o y e e needs

Clarify the organization's mission, vision. and values

Model e m p o w e r e d behavior

Clearly specify the tasks, roles, and rewards

Build teams to encourage cooperation

Delegate responsibility

Encourage intelligent risk taking

H o l d people accountable for results

Trust people to perform

SOURCE: Based on Quinn and Spreitzer (1997, p. 38).

Both approaches to e m p o w e r m e n t h a v e their time a n d place, b u t the organic a p p r o a c h is m o r e likely to create a culture of innovation a n d d e e p c o m m i t m e n t . Cultural change processes practiced organically are less predictable b u t are m o r e likely to create conditions w h e r e m e m b e r s h a v e integrated their o w n values w i t h larger values shared b y the organization. A n d such cultures are m o r e able to w i t h s t a n d latent resistance. M u c h of the p o p u l a r literature on e m p o w e r m e n t w o r k s from the m e c h a nistic m o d e l . This p o p u l a r i t y is b a s e d m o r e on catering to m a n a g e r i a l fears a n d identities t h a n careful reasoning or data. The combination of a communicative leadership articulating a p o w erful vision a n d an organic e m p o w e r m e n t process enable b o t h leadership a n d m e m b e r s to m a k e the vision their own. O p e n discussion rather t h a n the expectation of compliance is key to successful c h a n g e a n d e m p o w e r m e n t . M a n y m a n a g e r s h a v e difficulty m a k i n g a distinction b e tween leading the organization a n d controlling it. E m p o w e r m e n t requires such a distinction. One group feared empowerment w o u l d create "loose cannons." A person from the second group retorted, "When w a s the last time y o u saw a cannon of any kind around here." —Quinn and Spreitzer (1997, p. 39)

What Is an Empowered Person? The p o p u l a r m a n a g e m e n t literature argues for e m p o w e r m e n t b a s e d on information sharing, a participatory structure, t e a m b u i l d i n g a n d team-based decision m a k i n g , relevant training opportunities, a n d re-

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Ψ 103 warding employees for risk and initiatives. All of these are clearly part of developing an empowered employee, but they retain a concept that empowerment is something that managers d o to employees. In contrast, as Alan Frohman (1997) s h o w e d in his studies of personal initiative, meaningful empowerment arises from self-determination and internal motivation. These are likely to be reduced by the values implicit in typical empowerment programs. The assumptions made about people embedded in most empowerment programs have more consequences than the activities. Empowerment requires that leaders help build a culture of initiation and remove barriers. Recognizing initiators helps. Frohman (1997) argues that in most companies the people w h o bring about changes are relatively easily recognized, if somewhat unexpected. Most initiators are not on the company's "high potential" list, a list that often represents game playing and conformity. Instead, they are people w h o perceive organizational needs and take it on themselves to g o bey o n d their jobs. They are action oriented and sufficiently motivated to make a difference so that they often engage in learning focused on meeting organizational needs. Initiators were energetic and independent and openly questioned the status quo but were loyal and respectful.

Do You Need Empowered People? The reasons for empowerment in a general sense are clear in the reason for moving to participation at all. If employees are desired w h o are more effective, innovative, and transformational, empowerment is important. Empowered employees d o their jobs better, they create n e w w a y s of working, they help the organization adapt to changing environments, and they ignite change in those around them. Despite this, m a n y leaders are themselves resistant to empowerment.

Do You Want Empowered People? Despite the rhetoric not all leaders w h o advocate empowerment want it. Some are like parents w h o want their children to make decisions for themselves but want them to make only the decisions that the parent otherwise w o u l d have made. Such an approach is often worse than n o empowerment at all. It invites mutual distrust and cynicism and cannot achieve the value of employee-based decision making and responsibility. The end result is a workforce of people w h o ask just to b e told what to

104

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS T H R O U G H TRANSITION

d o a n d m a n a g e r s w h o h a v e their beliefs confirmed that e m p l o y e e s cannot, will not, or d o n o t w a n t to d o it. Part of the reason for this situation is that bureaucratic cultures are very powerful in m a n y organizations. They are b a s e d in deeply h e l d values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s a n d p e r p e t u a t e d in virtually all talk a n d p r a c tices in organizational life. The thinking a n d information leading to a desired change is u n d e n n i n e d b y the larger culture. Expectations of conformity a n d n a r r o w l y defined a n d highly constrained conflict are c o m m o n . Lowering these barriers to change is difficult a n d h a s to b e b a s e d in a genuine desire for change. A cultural change process that does n o t practice the very values desired in the e n d is n o t likely to succeed.

How Do People Develop a Sense of Empowerment? People d e v e l o p a sense of e m p o w e r m e n t a n d internalize n e w values incrementally over time. Doing so d e m a n d s a willingness to e m b r a c e uncertainty a n d trust people. Trust requires trying a n d testing. C h a n g e is initiated w i t h reframings that allow individuals to visualize themselves a n d their e n v i r o n m e n t s differently. This begins to s h o w u p in n e w interpretations of situations a n d n e w solutions to old p r o b lems. Initially, this m a y b e d o n e tentatively a n d w i t h m u c h attention to o t h e r s ' reactions. Habits are being broken, b u t even w i t h success, experience h a s t a u g h t m a n y employees to b e cautious. If these actions are reinforced, self-confidence increases a n d the n e w p a t t e r n s b e c o m e m o r e automatic a n d comfortable. C o m m i t m e n t to the organization increases as does trust of others, w h i c h in t u r n leads to satisfaction a n d higher levels of effort. A n d the cycle continues. Frustration or perceived p u n i s h m e n t early in this cycle stops the process quickly a n d leads to demoralization, leaving the employee more cautious than before.

What Organizational Characteristics Facilitate Empowerment? M a n y qualities of organizational life can facilitate the d e v e l o p m e n t cycle. The m o s t central quality is a powerful vision b a s e d in the m e m b e r ' s o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the challenges facing the organization, o n e

Employee Participation and Cultural Change

Ψ

105

that p r o v i d e s critical internal motivation. Equally i m p o r t a n t are a g r o u p of practices that identify a n d r e w a r d refraining a n d initiative. T e a m w o r k can p r o v i d e a circle of p e o p l e w h o s u p p o r t each o t h e r ' s efforts. Identifying a n d expressing stories of accomplishment helps. Tying r e w a r d syst e m s to initiative m a k e s the m e s s a g e clear. The right kind of guidelines can also help. If e m p l o y e e s k n o w clearly the situations in which they h a v e discretionary control a n d w h e r e they d o not, uncertainty a n d insecurity are reduced a n d m a n a g e r s m a y b e m o r e willing to let go of control.

What Can Leaders Do? Leaders can d o m u c h to create organizational conditions that encourage a n d reduce barriers to initiation a n d a sense of e m p o w e r m e n t . Initiation is often stifled b y time pressures, time to get a p p r o v a l s , n u m b e r of a p p r o v a l s r e q u i r e d , i n a d e q u a t e resources, shifting priorities, a n d complex organizational structures. Leaders h a v e s o m e control over each of these. But as the w o r k of Q u i n n a n d Spreitzer (1997) d e m o n s t r a t e d , m o s t importantly leaders m u s t feel e m p o w e r e d themselves; u n e m p o w e r e d p e o p l e rarely e m p o w e r others. They suggest a list of eight questions for every leader. These " h a r d a n d h a r d e r " questions serve as a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t of reflection at this p o i n t in the chapter.

Exercise

5.4

Think of an organization in which you are a member or imagine yourself as a member of one with which you are familiar. Carefully think through Quinn and Spreitzer's (1997) hard and harder questions. Hard Questions for a Leader 1 . If a sense of a clear strategic vision is a characteristic of an empowering environment, am I continuously working to clarify the sense of strategic direction for the people in my own stewardship? 2. If openness and teamwork are characteristics of an empowering environment, am I continuously striving for participation and involvement for the people in my own stewardship?

106

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

3. If discipline and control are characteristics of an empowering environment, am I continuously working to clarify expectations regarding the goals, tasks, and lines of authority in my own stewardship? 4. If support and security are characteristics of an empowering environment, am I continuously working to resolve the conflicts among the people in my own stewardship?

Harder Questions 1 . To what extent do I have a sense of meaning and task alignment, and what can I do to increase it? 2. To what extent do I have a sense of impact, influence, and power, and what can I do to increase it? 3. To what extent do I have a sense of competence and confidence to execute my work, and what can I do to increase it? 4. To what extent do I have a sense of self-determination and choice, and what can I do to increase it? (p. 47)

Methods of Participation in Change In m o s t cases, m e t h o d s of participation in c h a n g e efforts differ little from m e t h o d s for participation in general. Most of these are familiar a n d need n o t b e repeated here. A great deal of the literature focuses on b u i l d ing effective teams. Deborah Harrington-Mackin's (1994) w o r k is reco m m e n d e d as especially helpful. O t h e r m e t h o d s m o r e directly connected to joint visioning a n d developing cultural change are less familiar. H e r e t w o will b e considered: appreciative inquiry a n d future and search conferencing.

Appreciative

Inquiry

D a v i d Cooperrider a n d Suresh Srivasta (1990) h a v e d e v e l o p e d a p preciative inquiry as a w a y to look at w h a t gives life to a n organization. It uses a form of positive questioning to d e v e l o p a d a t a b a s e o u t of w h i c h m e m b e r s can envision m o r e provocative a n d positive futures. The p r o cess is d e v e l o p e d o u t of questions related to discovery, destiny, d r e a m , a n d design:

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Ύ 107 Discovery: What is it about the organization that should be appreciated and valued? What gives life to the organization? What in the organization is exceptional? Destiny: What can be learned in the process of inquiry that can lead to sustainable change and growth? Who would be involved? Who shares in the organization's destiny? Dream: What are the possibilities for the organization's future? What would we like? What would we like to be doing? Design: How would an organization look that meets that future? How can we remake the organization to prepare for reaching our dream?

In such a n approach, d a t a gathering, d e v e l o p m e n t of future possibilities, a n d b u i l d i n g c o m m i t m e n t to those possibilities are c o m b i n e d . A s a g r o u p participates in the inquiry process, the o r d i n a r y p r o b l e m solving m o d e of thinking that often stymies change a n d strips g r o u p s of their energy is redirected t o w a r d m a k i n g futures rather t h a n getting by. G r o u p s that focus their energy o n their preferred futures exhibit m o r e energy a n d c o m m i t m e n t t h a n g r o u p s that discuss their p a s t a n d present p r o b l e m s . Systematic questioning can p r o v i d e reframing that is difficult to advocate or w o u l d otherwise b e m e t w i t h resistance.

Future and Search Conferencing F u t u r e a n d search conferences are b a s e d o n a similar logic b u t u s e the focus a n d energy g e n e r a t e d in retreat settings for a n organization to m o v e from exploration to c o m m i t m e n t m o r e quickly. F u t u r e a n d search conference methodologies h a v e b e e n a r o u n d for s o m e time b u t recently h a v e b e e n h e r a l d e d as n e w social innovations in the field of m a n a g i n g large-scale change. Conferences of this sort u s e the energy involved in intense systematic discussion to h e l p organizations find a course to the future a n d a d a p t to t u r b u l e n t e n v i r o n m e n t s . T h e y are n o r m a l l y t w o - t o t h r e e - d a y e v e n t s a w a y from the w o r k site. Participants are selected b a s e d o n k n o w l e d g e a n d insight, diversity of perspective, ability to e n g a g e in o p e n c o m m u nication, a n d p o t e n t i a l for t a k i n g responsibility for i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . M o r e details are p r o v i d e d in the review b y Ronald P u r s e r a n d colleagues (Purser & C a b a n a , 1997) of such a conference w i t h Xerox.

108

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Developing Principles of Dialogue Participation that m a k e s a difference is based in a very different form of c o m m u n i c a t i o n than that c o m m o n in c o m m a n d a n d control m a n a g e m e n t a n d debating societies. This form is best described as dialogue. Peter Senge (1990) described dialogue as the capacity of a g r o u p to susp e n d a s s u m p t i o n s a n d enter into a g e n u i n e "thinking together." H e d o e s n o t m e a n "thinking alike," for which o n e p e r s o n w o u l d d o , b u t a t y p e of interaction w h e r e prior stances are let go a n d individuals e n g a g e in productive explorations a n d conflicts that p u s h b e y o n d the thinking of a n y o n e person. This is clearly different from talk in m o s t organizations that e m p h a size advocating particular choices w i t h o u t exploring u n d e r l y i n g intents a n d a s s u m p t i o n s a n d usually d o n o t p u r s u e w i n / w i n decisions. Dialogue requires b o t h particular qualities of interpersonal c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d a collaborative orientation.

Interpersonal Communication

Qualities

Even face-to-face c o m m u n i c a t i o n is often m o r e a s i m u l t a n e o u s m o n o l o g u e a m o n g several people than a dialogue. Even w h e n there is a g e n u i n e effort to u n d e r s t a n d the other a n d considerable trust a n d openness, w i t h o u t a p p r o p r i a t e skills, dialogue cannot h a p p e n . H e r e four skills are h i g h l i g h t e d : immediacy, concreteness, o w n e r s h i p , a n d ack n o w l e d g m e n t . The discussion is followed b y a dialogue d e m o n s t r a t i n g the use of the skills. Immediacy. I m m e d i a c y refers to the sense of being present, focusing o n p a y i n g attention, listening, a n d perceiving the emotional content of messages. In m a n y discussions p e o p l e are n o t really present to each other; t h e y are s i m p l y w a i t i n g for their t u r n to r e s p o n d rather t h a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d being responsive. A successful leader u n d e r s t a n d s that m o s t people h a v e a fairly h i g h need to b e really h e a r d a n d taken seriously. Employees d o not w a n t to hear y o u r experiences, to h a v e y o u fix their problems, or to b e treated like a representative of a class of people. They w a n t their feelings a n d their i m m e d i a t e circumstances r e s p o n d e d to. They w a n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d the p o w e r to act responsively a n d responsibly. Interaction charac-

Employee Participation and Cultural Change Ψ 109 terized by immediacy involves much eye contact and supportive gestures. It is patient and careful and filled with requests for further understanding. Concreteness. Concreteness refers to expressions that avoid abstractions b y providing meaningful details. A n expression is abstract whenever it provides a generalized conclusion or evaluation without providing the descriptive information from which such a conclusion or evaluation w a s reached. Abstractions create problems because they (a) overgeneralize, making problems appear larger and more difficult to solve; (b) provide listeners with little information on which to base their o w n evaluations and responses; and (c) tend to evoke responses to the words themselves rather than to what the speaker has actually experienced. The statement, "John is irresponsible," includes all these qualities. The more concrete statement, "I w a s disappointed last month w h e n John did not meet his quota," provides a much better opportunity for dialogue, whether the conversation is with John or others. Concrete expressions help clarify the content of the interaction, provide more and more useful information, reduce emotional intensity, align interpretations, and increase change options. Abstractions are so natural to many people that mutual commitment to exploration and clarification may be necessary for improved communication. Ownership. Ownership is the process of explicitly assigning and expressing appropriate responsibility for feeling and actions. U n o w n e d statements shift responsibility by taking on too much responsibility or too little, leading to defensiveness, guilt, and inability to correct. The statement, "You make m e so angry," inappropriately shifts responsibility for one's o w n feelings to the other. Although the other's actions leading to the feelings of anger are important and must be o w n e d by the other, the person feeling anger contributes also. Anger requires both the actions and the unmet hopes, desires, expectations, and anticipations of the one having the feeling. Both are appropriately open to discussion. A lack of ownership is also often present in claims of objectivity and facts. All claims and facts require agreed-on processes or procedures for their formation. Even the accountant's report requires the acceptance of "general accounting procedures" for its claims. Often these processes and procedures remain implicit, making discussion of them impossible

110

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

a n d consideration of their p r o d u c t s incomplete. Responsibility is p u s h e d to s o m e invisible realm. Responsibility is also often shifted to rules a n d generic s h o u l d s a n d oughts. Questions like " W h o s e o u g h t s ? " " W h y are they applicable in this situation?" can b e undiscussible. Responsibility is shifted to an a b sent authority. O w n e d m e s s a g e s explicitly d e m o n s t r a t e responsibility for self, t h o u g h t s , feelings, k n o w l e d g e claims, a n d actions. They often begin w i t h a n explicit "I think" or "I w a n t " rather t h a n a p p e a r i n g w i t h o u t a n origin. To p r o d u c e a n o w n e d m e s s a g e requires (a) k n o w i n g w h a t y o u are really feeling, thinking, or doing; (b) honestly determining w h a t y o u h a v e to value, anticipate, or w a n t to think or feel this w a y w h e n confronted w i t h the o t h e r ' s statements a n d actions; a n d (c) determining w h i c h are the t h o u g h t s a n d feelings that y o u w i s h to share w i t h the other. Most o w n e d statements begin to m a k e explicit the d e e p values a n d a s s u m p t i o n s that are e m b e d d e d in a n organization's culture. Acknowledgment. A c k n o w l e d g m e n t is the process of m a k i n g explicit y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the other p e r s o n ' s message prior to r e s p o n d i n g to it. In the absence of a c k n o w l e d g m e n t the following sequence often results: I m p o r t a n t messages from one or both are overlooked, denied, or only partly u n d e r s t o o d ; participants r e s p o n d to different messages as the interpretations misalign; a b o g u s issue arises on w h i c h the participation partly aligns, t h u s justifying the heightened emotions; a n d interactants leave the interaction feeling m i s u n d e r s t o o d , u n d e r v a l u e d , a n d suspicious. A c k n o w l e d g m e n t can help d r a w o u t the u n d e r l y i n g interpretations (the right-hand dialogue) that is the real life of interaction a n d m e a n i n g assignment. A c k n o w l e d g m e n t increases the possibility of greater u n d e r standing, eases distinction b e t w e e n m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a n d g e n u i n e disagreements, a n d increases feelings of i m m e d i a c y a n d trust. Each particip a n t is affirmed as v a l u e d a n d m e a n i n g s are clarified. An Example. M a r y is Bill's supervisor. Bill h a d t u r n e d in a lengthy report on a project being considered. Working o n it h a s p u t h i m b e h i n d on other duties. M a r y w a s quite d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h it a n d still h a s to p r e p a r e h e r o w n presentation. Mary: "Bill, I need y o u to d o that report over."

Bill: "Really?"

Employee Participation and Cultural Change

Ψ 111

Mary: "Yeah, I need it back as soon as possible." Bill: "What do you want?" Mary: "More development and more direct answers to their questions." Bill: "I thought it was pretty good." Mary: "Well, it doesn't show any drive or initiative—that you have things under control." Bill: "I know my stuff pretty well." Mary: "Well, you have to show it if you want to get ahead." Bill: "For some people, it's all show." Mary: "I don't make the rules, just get the report in." The d i a l o g u e is n o t too lengthy or intense b u t shares characteristics w i t h m a n y a t t e m p t s at d i a l o g u e that fail, often in a m u c h g r a n d e r w a y t h a n this one. The interaction g r o w s m o r e difficult a n d abstract. By the e n d , little u n d e r s t a n d i n g is present, the issues are bigger, neither p a r t y feels appreciated, a n d future interactions are likely to b e less frequent a n d m o r e difficult. Bill d o e s n o t feel his situation is u n d e r s t o o d a n d M a r y h i d e s h e r o w n frustrations a n d lack of information in generalizations a n d blame.

Exercise

5.5

•

Identify places in the interaction where the statements lacked immediacy, concreteness, ownership, or acknowledgment.

*

Rewrite portions of the interaction demonstrating more productive skills.

The following is a hypothetical rewrite d e m o n s t r a t i n g interpersonal skills leading to a different e n d . Mary: "Bill, John needs more details on projected material costs and time requirements before he can consider approving the project." Bill: "Ah! I was hoping it was done. I'm so far behind." Mary: "Yeah, I know you have worked hard on the report at a bad time. But they will meet on Friday. For me to get my part done, I'll need it Thursday afternoon, sooner if possible."

112

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Bill: "You mentioned both the material costs and time requirements. Do you know exactly what they need?" Mary: "I'm a little frustrated myself. John was not very clear himself. I know they want more on the specific timetable for each phase and some comparative figures for considering suppliers. Maybe we should sit down together and talk it out in detail so that we know what we can say. I'll see if I can find out more." Bill: "I hope a meeting won't be necessary. I appreciate your help, I want it to go well. I think I know better what is needed, but I may need some help to collect everything before Thursday without messing up the GS project." Mary: "I know you are pretty pushed, but this is important. I need it to go well, too. Maybe Joe can help on the GS project." In the rewrite meaningful details are a d d e d . Abstract, b u t concretes o u n d i n g , terms like " d o it over," "their questions," "taking initiative," a n d " s h o w i n g it" are replaced b y details of w h e n a n d w h a t a n d b y criteria for j u d g m e n t . U n o w n e d feelings expressed as generic frustration a n d negative reactions b e c o m e specified a n d o w n e d . A n d each feels better that h e or she is u n d e r s t o o d as explicit attempts are m a d e to p l a y back a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the bases for the feelings a n d t h o u g h t of each. Each of the interpersonal skills is m o r e i m p o r t a n t w h e n the c o n t i n u e d relationship is i m p o r t a n t , information n e e d s are high, change is desired or occurring, the issues are emotionally laden, or social a n d cultural differences are great.

An Orientation Toward Problem Solving

Collaborative

Most organizations h a v e lots of meetings. Most probably h a v e too many. O n e of the fears of organizational m e m b e r s as m o r e participative approaches are suggested is that the n u m b e r of meetings will increase. This n e e d n o t b e the case. In fact, a reduction in the time in meetings is possible. Most meetings are filled with discussion b u t not dialogue. Two key characteristics separate discussions from dialogues. First, discussions t e n d to focus on the airing a n d advocacy of k n o w n positions rather t h a n the exploration of u n k n o w n ones. Second, discussions often focus o n saying rather than doing. At best they m a y e n d w i t h a vote, b u t often the

Employee Participation and Cultural Change W 113 TABLE 5.4 C o m p a r i s o n of A d v e r s a r i a l a n d Collaborative Communication Adversarial

Collaborative

Members are adversaries.

Members are joint problem solvers.

Speaking c o m e s from a position or preferred m e a n s of accomplishment.

Speaking c o m e s from an o u t c o m e w i s h i n g to b e accomplished.

Discussion b e c o m e s polarized around positions.

Dialogue focuses o n c o m p l e x underlying interests.

Discussion narrows options.

Dialogue broadens field of options.

Facts are u s e d to support positions.

Joint search is u s e d to discover the facts.

Seeks w i n n i n g arguments.

Seeks workable options.

Problems defined before meeting.

Problems mutually defined in meetings.

Final responsibility for the decision rests o n others.

Final responsibility for the decision rests w i t h the group.

SOURCE: Based on Gray (1991, p. 50).

discussion e n d s w i t h s i m p l y the n e e d for m o r e discussion. Dialogue focuses o n the reaching of a c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d m u t u a l c o m m i t m e n t to a decision. F r o m the s t a n d p o i n t of practice, v a r i o u s forms of collaborative decision m a k i n g p r o v i d e the context for dialogue. Collaboration requires a different attitude going into m e e t i n g s a n d a different form of interaction in meetings. These differences are well characterized in the differences b e t w e e n adversarial a n d collaborative c o m m u n i c a t i o n s u m m a r i z e d in Table 5.4.

Exercise *

5.6

Describe a recent conflict situation in an organization with which you are familiar. Identify instances of both adversarial and collaborative communication.

• Think of a situation where two individuals appeared to be fighting over the same resource. Identify why they wanted that resource, or the "end" for which this resource was a "means." Can you identify ways both could simultaneously achieve their ends without using that resource?

114

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Review Questions Τ

Why have more companies turned to increased employee participation in decision making?

Ψ

What are the differences between governance based on hierarchical control and governance based on participation?

V

When is employee participation in decision making especially important?

Ψ

Why might a company chose to involve external stakeholders in decision making?

W

What are the differences between a mechanistic and an organic conception of empowerment?

f

Why might greater employee empowerment be of value?

Τ

H o w might organizational members participate in visioning and change processes?

¥

W h y w o u l d immediacy, concreteness, ownership, and acknowledgment contribute to more productive discussions?

Ψ

What are the major differences between adversarial and collaborative approaches to discussion and problem solving?

Discussion Questions Ψ

What have been your experiences with participation and empowerment programs? When have they succeeded and failed? What might y o u d o about the cynicism that frequently comes with these programs?

Ψ

D o you feel people can significantly change interpersonal skills and their basic orientations to interaction with others? Under what circumstances are such changes more likely?

References and Recommended Readings Cooperrider, D., & Srivasta, S. (Eds.). (1990). Appreciative management and leadership: The power of positive thought and action in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Frohman, A. (1997, Winter). Igniting organizational change from below: The p o w e r of personal initiative. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 39-53. Gray, B. (1991). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harrington-Mackin, D. (1994). The team building tool kit. N e w York: Amacom.

Employee Participation and Cultural Change

Τ

115

McLagan, P., & Nel, C. (1995). The age of participation: New governance for the workplace and world. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Purser, R., & Cabana, S. (1997, Spring). U s i n g search conferences for planning large-scale strategic change. Organization Development Journal, 15,30-52. Quinn, R , & Spreitzer, G. (1997, Autumn). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, p p . 37-49. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. N e w York: Doubleday.

Suggested Case Study Deetz, S. (1995). Stakeholder representation and building the better mousetrap: The Saturn c a s e / ' In Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: H a m p t o n Press.

The Ethics of Cultural Control and Organizational Change

Overview Managing through a cultural approach provides many important benefits, including high identification, team spirit, coordinated organizational processes, and more widespread and positive participation in decision making. Like all strategies for organizing, however, managing culture and cultural change has significant ethical implications that cannot be overlooked. This chapter explores what it means to be an ethical cultural manager and lays out different ways organizations can plan for and deal with ethical dilemmas stemming from cultural management and change. The chapter addresses three concerns. First, various organizational structures can lead to unethical activities, and potential dangers reside in cultural control. Second, developing an overall ethics program includes the creation of a formal ethics credo and the maintenance of ongoing programs of ethics. And third, ethical considerations exist in conducting cultural analyses. 116

The Ethics of Cultural Control Τ 117

Key Objectives of the Chapter •

To examine the importance of managing ethics as part of an overall cultural management program

•

To analyze organizational cultural elements that can lead to unethical activity

•

To understand the potential dangers of cultural control

•

To provide guidelines for creating an ethical credo and an ongoing ethics program

Τ

To explain the ethical sensitivities of cultural change programs and interventions

•

To provide an ethical audit designed to help organizational leaders gauge the ethics of cultural management

Questions to Consider •

Think of times you have engaged or considered engaging in unethical behaviors, for example, cheating or misrepresentation. To what extent did you take into account the general cultural positions (that is, is cheating common or misrepresentation nearly expected) on these activities in deciding your own course of action?

•

Have you ever experienced cultural control that was so effective that you rarely thought about how you felt or what you would have preferred? Do you think it is ethical for anyone to control you through controlling how you think and feel?

Τ

On what basis do you feel that anyone has a right to inculcate values? Do you believe that ethically positive cultures are a good way to enhance ethical individual choices?

•

Do you think that some cultures are more ethical than others? How would you assess the relative ethical quality of different cultures?

Τ

What are some ethical considerations organizational leaders should think about before engaging in a cultural intervention or change initiative?

118

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

The Need for Ethical Considerations C o n t e m p o r a r y issues of ethics a n d socially responsible b e h a v i o r are complex. Individual a n d c o m m u n i t y pressures a n d ethical directives (or lack thereof) create pressures in organizations. Interconnectedness a n d interdependency m a k e personal a n d c o m m u n i t y s t a n d a r d s less useful a n d less proper. The decline of traditional systems of surveillance a n d the relativity of certain values in the international context r e d u c e v o l u n tary compliance a n d increase complexity a n d uncertainty for organizations. Ethical concerns range from issues of compliance to organizational directives o n matters such as expense accounts to complex concerns w i t h h u m a n rights, environmental protection, equal o p p o r t u n i t y for disadv a n t a g e d g r o u p s , a n d fair competition. These concerns are instantiated in personal activities such as lying o n resumes, stealing, a n d not d o i n g one's job a n d organizational activities s u c h as u s i n g p r i s o n e r s as w o r k e r s , m o v i n g o p e r a t i o n s to e n v i r o n mentally less protective communities, offering a n d taking payoffs a n d bribes, engaging tax avoidance schemes, creating environmentally u n s o u n d or wasteful p r o d u c t s or packaging, p r o m o t i n g violent entertainment, a d d i n g to the g r o w i n g income disparity, tolerating sexual h a r a s s ment, a n d closing economically successful operations in takeover a n d m e r g e r games. Organizational cultures h a v e great impact on the w a y these ethical concerns are addressed. A n d the a t t e m p t to m a n a g e the hearts, m i n d s , a n d souls of organizational m e m b e r s , n o matter h o w useful or i m p o r t a n t in these situations, h a s itself d e e p ethical complications. M a n y m a n a g e r s p r o m o t e cultures that are h a r d on families, the community, a n d the environment. Despite the o p p o r t u n i t y for abuse, leader-induced culture change (especially w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t h w i d e s p r e a d participation) can lead to cultures ethically far superior to existing or native cultures. O u r concern is h o w to get there. Organizational cultures can b e conducive to unethical behaviors. In the public context, the effect of culture is sometimes clear. The decision of the Republication C o m m i t t e e to Re-Elect the President to b r e a k into the Democratic Party's h e a d q u a r t e r s in the Watergate Hotel is a classic case of tight culture r u n astray. The m e n w h o m a d e u p this committee w e r e intelligent, experienced, a n d powerful. These qualities d i d n o t enable t h e m to see b e y o n d the p a r t y line or overcome the p a r a n o i a that

The Ethics of Cultural Control

Τ

119

a c c o m p a n i e d that limited vision. Equally clearly the fund-raising rule stretching a n d breaking b y the Democratic N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e in 1996 g r e w o u t of a lax administration of activities a n d a culture of " w h a t e v e r it takes." These t w o cases illustrate h o w culture can b e p a r t y to unethical decisions. Private sector e x a m p l e s are often m o r e complicated a n d shielded from public v i e w b u t n o less important. Rarely are they as clear as in the Mitsubishi case w h e r e a long-term culture of a n d acceptance of sexual h a r a s s m e n t finally lead to a n explosion of lawsuits a n d public outcry. More often, the rules a n d the violations are less clear, b u t they m a t t e r b o t h to p e o p l e in the organization a n d to those outside. A s w e h e a d into the 21st century, organizations are facing a t u r b u l e n t w o r l d of w o r k , w i t h bone-thin b u d g e t s , i m m i n e n t d o w n s i z i n g , global competition, a n d continual transformation. These situations exacerbate issues of organizational ethics. E m p l o y e e s are feeling greater p r e s s u r e to perform while u s i n g fewer resources in c o m p a n i e s that s h o w little c o m m i t m e n t to them. Typical studies report that almost 7 5 % of e m p l o y e e s perceive pressure to act unethically, a n d 40%-50% of e m p l o y e e s report acting unethically or illegally d u r i n g a n y particular year. C o m m o n transgressions included cutting corners o n quality, covering u p illegal incidents, abusing or lying a b o u t sick d a y s , deceiving customers, lying to a s u p e r v i s o r or s u b o r d i n a t e , a n d taking credit for a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e ' s ideas. Employees are facing this pressure d u r i n g a time w h e n organizations are b e c o m i n g m o r e complex a n d diverse. Globalization p r o v i d e s its o w n ethical d i l e m m a s . For instance, w h a t is considered to b e a gift in o n e culture m i g h t b e considered to b e a bribe in another. Intellectual p r o p e r t y rights are complex, a n d w h a t m i g h t b e v i e w e d as collaboration in o n e country m i g h t b e seen as stealing a n o t h e r p e r s o n ' s idea in a n a n o t h e r culture or e n g a g i n g in unfair competition in yet another. Because of this a n d other complexities, organizational leaders clearly n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the ethical implications of m a n a g i n g culture a n d m a n a g i n g t h r o u g h culture. T h e first q u e s t i o n organizational leaders m u s t deal w i t h is, w h a t i n d i v i d u a l a n d organizational factors lead to unethical behavior, a n d h o w can these factors b e m a n a g e d ? Most organizational ethical codes focus o n i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e b e h a v i o r s . Ethical credos lay o u t sanctions against e m p l o y e e s w h o lie, cheat, steal from the company, b r e a k the law, or take credit for a n o t h e r

120

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

p e r s o n ' s work. This focus m a y h e l p individuals to take stock of their personal m o r a l actions. But a fixation o n microlevel ethics suggests that all organizational problems can b e solved b y teaching (or scaring) e m ployees into a d o p t i n g a m o r a l ethical code. It a s s u m e s that e v e r y o n e faces situations w h e r e it is t e m p t i n g to act unethically a n d that it is u p to the individual to h a v e e n o u g h strength a n d character to stand u p a n d act ethically. The p r o b l e m w i t h a n exclusively micro view of ethics is that it does little to examine the w a y s that an organization's cultural strength a n d character impacts individual employee decisions a n d activities or the w a y the organization itself m a y b e operating unethically or socially irresponsibly. A l t h o u g h individual m o r a l codes m a y b e a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t of a culture's ethics, m a n a g e r s m u s t also consider the structures of organizational culture that encourage or are conducive to unethical b e h a v i o r in a b r o a d sense. T h r o u g h an incorporation of macroethical issues, cultural m a n a g e r s can encourage ethical values in organizational m e m b e r s t h r o u g h a consideration of cultural structures that impact organizational activity.

Cultural Elements Conducive to Unethical Behavior Several organizational characteristics can b e conducive to unethical b e havior. A l t h o u g h m a n a g e r s cannot necessarily p r e v e n t the formation of such cultural elements, a simple awareness of their unethical potentiality can curb their power. These situations include w o r k g r o u p s that are highly cohesive a n d closed to outside influences; value statements that are v a g u e , a m b i g u o u s , or contradictory; large separations a n d s e g m e n tations b e t w e e n levels of hierarchy or organizational d e p a r t m e n t s ; organizational practices that systematically privilege one g r o u p of p e o p l e over another; incentive p r o g r a m s that encourage unfair competition; a n d a code of silence in regard to organizational ethics.

A Closed, Highly Cohesive System If an organization is fearful of outside influences or s h u t s itself off from the organizational environment, m e m b e r s m a y begin to act unethically. Organizational leaders m u s t k n o w the difference b e t w e e n a strong

The Ethics of Cultural Control

Τ

121

culture and a culture that encourages groupthink. Groupthink is a phen o m e n o n in which organizational group members become so cohesive that productive conflict or dissent is disallowed. The Watergate incident is a classic example of groupthink. A l t h o u g h organizational identification is important for a strong culture, organizational leaders can ward off groupthink by encouraging dialogue and dissent. In fact, interpersonal conflict actually improves a group's decision making if the conflict is focused on substantive issues. Therefore, w h e n an organization needs to make an important decision, leaders should invite and w e l c o m e diverse opinions and understandings. If a group's decision cannot stand u p to environmental or internal scrutiny, then it is most likely neither the most ethical nor the most beneficial course of action for the organization to take.

Vague or Contradictory Vision Statements A s discussed later in this chapter, organizational members rely on ethical credos that follow naturally from their organization's vision and are easy to understand. Unfortunately, many organizations fall into the trap of devising ethical statements that are so vague as to be almost useless. They may include generalities such as, "Employees at our company should treat customers and coemployees fairly and equitably." But what does this mean? When an employee is facing a decision of whether to g o over his or her boss's head to report sexual harassment, where should his or her loyalties lie? W h o should the employee treat most fairly—the boss or the person w h o is being harassed? Sometimes value statements or ethical credos can be self-contradictory. In a public relations company that one of us is familiar with, called P.R. Inc., employees became confused by the company's "Little Instruction Book." The instructions were listed in no particular order and employees did not know which instructions management intended to be highest priority. Simple instructions included "Always turn in projects by deadline" and "Never turn in projects with typos." Sometimes e m ployees were unable to follow both instructions at once—if they were to turn something in by deadline it w o u l d include typos, or if they fixed the typos the work could not be submitted b y deadline. Granted, it is difficult if not impossible for value statements to specify the instructions or particular courses of action employees should take in each and every organizational situation. Nevertheless, because value statements by their nature tend to be somewhat vague and priorities can

122

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

seem contradictory, m a n a g e m e n t m u s t consider w a y s to m a k e organizational value statements come alive a n d b e practical—an issue that is discussed in m o r e detail later in this chapter.

Excessive Organizational

Segmentation

M o s t organizations are s e g m e n t e d a n d specialized at least to s o m e extent. Organizations divide b o t h laterally into different d e p a r t m e n t s (e.g., legal, marketing, production) a n d linearly into different hierarchical levels (e.g., m a n a g e m e n t , m i d d l e m a n a g e m e n t , staff). A l t h o u g h s o m e t y p e of segmentation is n o r m a l a n d n a t u r a l in all organizations, excessive segmentation can m a k e it easier for unethical activities to occur. Organizational d e p a r t m e n t s a n d p o w e r levels m u s t b e connected or else it is easy for responsibility to "fall t h r o u g h the cracks." Large g a p s b e t w e e n organizational d e p a r t m e n t s can deter n e e d e d lateral communication. Products are often recalled because different d e p a r t m e n t s in the s a m e organization were n o t well e n o u g h linked to discuss safety concerns about a product. For instance, if the m a r k e t i n g d e p a r t m e n t of a toy c o m p a n y is n o t connected w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n d e p a r t m e n t , it m i g h t create a toy that could cause a child to choke. The p e o p l e in the p r o d u c t i o n d e p a r t m e n t m i g h t figure that the toy h a s alr e a d y b e e n designed a n d m a r k e t e d , so n o w it is their job to m a k e the toy as it w a s originally p r o p o s e d . Just as a secretary m i g h t shred p a p e r s of u n k n o w n origin or a garbage truck driver m i g h t d u m p a load of q u e s tionable waste, m a n y people figure that if they are told to d o s o m e t h i n g , then it is their job to d o it, n o questions asked. Unfortunately, this t y p e of segmentation b e t w e e n d e p a r t m e n t s can allow a n d encourage s m a r t p e o p l e to ignore i m p o r t a n t issues. Unethical behavior b y p e o p l e w i t h very h i g h personal m o r a l codes can result. Excessive organizational p o w e r differences a n d g a p s can also lead to unethical behavior. Studies s h o w that one of the m a i n d e t e r m i n i n g factors of o p e n communication b e t w e e n subordinates a n d superiors is the s u b o r d i n a t e s ' perceived p o w e r difference from the superior. The larger the p o w e r difference, the less willing subordinates are to c o m m u n i c a t e openly w i t h their superior. Therefore, organizations p r o v e to b e m o r e open, productive, a n d ethical w h e n p o w e r differences b e t w e e n superiors a n d subordinates are lessened. Organizations s h o u l d also incorporate c o m m u n i c a t i o n structures b e tween u p p e r management and workers w h e n developing organizational

The Ethics of Cultural Control

Τ

123

policy. Without clear conununication between leaders and members, organizational policies devised b y management to be ethical can lead to unethical behavior w h e n carried out by employees. For instance, P.R. Inc/s instruction "Always turn in projects by deadline" seems to raise few ethical concerns. Management might think twice, however, if they knew that employees often carried out this policy b y breaking the law (e.g., speeding d o w n the highway) and lying to clients (e.g., "No sir, w e at the agency weren't late. The messenger's car broke down, so i f s actually his fault."). Domino's Pizza learned the hard way, through lawsuits, the legal and ethical issues raised by rewarding drivers for quick deliveries.

Incentive Programs Can Encourage Unfair Competition Most organizations provide incentive programs for employees to motivate or reward them for behaving in the company's best interests. Such programs can take the form of monetary bonuses, end-of-the-quarter vacations, promotions, or simple pats on the back. In the majority of circumstances, these programs do much to help both employees and the organization. Nevertheless, management should beware of incentive programs that encourage unethical or unfair competition between organizational members. For instance, managers at a Denver-based water treatment company motivated salespeople b y offering a one-week luxury vacation to the person with the most water treatment sales each year. This motivation program, in place for years at the company, served to increase employee enthusiasm and boost overall company profits. Near the close of one fiscal year, to increase competition among the salespeople and drive sales, the company's management decided to internally post each employee's sales records. Two salesmen were nearly tied for that year. Driven by the knowledge that he was nearly the vacation winner, the slight underdog sabotaged the other salesman by spreading damaging rumors to his clients and slashing the man's car tires before an important sales call. This example illustrates an important lesson. Management must be careful of implementing incentive programs that might lead to intense competition and unethical behavior. In this instance, the effect of the incentive program w a s to encourage unethical behavior that ultimately reduces the company's profits.

124 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Practices That Are Discriminatory Certain Organizational Groups

to

Every organization has practices that are peculiar or specific to its particular goals a n d values. These practices, which often come in the form of company norms, rituals, a n d ceremonies, vary from organization to organization. Examples m i g h t include the n o r m that " g o o d " e m p l o y e e s stay at w o r k at least until 9 p . m . each night (but d o n o t h a v e to c o m e in until 10:30 a.m. the next morning); w e e k e n d w o r k is expected e v e n (or especially) w h e n the deadlines are unrealistic; or employees n e v e r go o u t for meals, except for Thursday night w h e n a group goes out to the local Mexican restaurant. Other organizations hold golf tournaments for their clients, whereas others encourage employees to join the company's softball team. O n their face, all these organizational practices m a y seem n o r m a l , natural, a n d even fun. O n the other h a n d , these practices can serve to privilege s o m e g r o u p s in the organization over others. For instance, it is m o r e difficult for a single parent to w o r k until 9 p . m . or w o r k w e e k e n d s t h a n it is for a childless p e r s o n or m a r r i e d p e r s o n w i t h a stay-at-home spouse. Even if the single p a r e n t c a m e in early in the m o r n i n g to m a k e u p the time, it is possible that other employees m a y still look d o w n o n h i m or her for " a l w a y s leaving early." Likewise, activities like golf tourn a m e n t s a n d softball g a m e s can serve as integral n e t w o r k i n g tools, b u t such rituals can b e problematic if they serve as the only vehicle for associating with a prospective client or the boss. In the organizational c o m m u n i c a t i o n classes of one of u s , a part-time salesman for a major international hotel chain described h o w golfing w o r k e d at his company. In a discussion of organizational n e t w o r k s , h e said, "The m a i n w a y w e get n e w clients in t h r o u g h golf—how else can y o u s p e n d three h o u r s with a potential client?" W h e n asked the d e m o graphics of the c o m p a n y ' s sales force, the m a n said, "It's p r o b a b l y a b o u t 60% male, 40% female, a n d probably a b o u t 80% w h i t e . " W h e n asked the d e m o g r a p h i c s of the c o m p a n y salespeople w h o a t t e n d e d the golf tourn a m e n t , the m a n stumbled, stopped, t h o u g h t a b o u t it for a second, a n d then said quietly, "Last year, I guess it w a s all w h i t e m e n . . . " As this example illustrates, company rituals that m a y b e fun and worthwhile can simultaneously serve to privilege some groups over others. Managers m u s t balance their goals for identification a n d informal n e t w o r k ing opportunities b y encouraging varied organizational practices that d o not serve to systematically discriminate against a certain g r o u p of people.

The Ethics of Cultural Control

V 125

The Ethics Code of Silence H u m a n beings learn early in life to k e e p their m o u t h s h u t if they are e n g a g e d in " b a d " b e h a v i o r s or associated w i t h " b a d " p e o p l e . A s little girls a n d b o y s g r o w u p to b e organizational m e m b e r s a n d leaders, this inclination to r e m a i n silent a b o u t ethical issues continues to prevail. For several reasons very few p e o p l e talk a b o u t ethical p r o b l e m s in public. First, p e o p l e d o n o t w a n t to implicate themselves. Second, p e o p l e w a n t to avoid "telling" o n their colleagues or clients. Third a n d m o s t i m p o r tant, p e o p l e d o d g e ethical discussion because they are afraid that other p e o p l e d o n o t share their values. If n o o n e else b r i n g s u p a certain b e h a v i o r as unethical, t h e n it s e e m s n o o n e thinks a n y t h i n g is w r o n g . P r o tected b y a c o d e of silence, unethical actions often are ignored u n t i l they b e c o m e big problems. A s discussed, several organizational structures can lead to a n organizational e n v i r o n m e n t or culture that is conducive to unethical b e h a v ior. These situations include w o r k g r o u p s that are highly cohesive a n d closed to o u t s i d e influences; value statements that are v a g u e or contradictory; large separations a n d segmentations b e t w e e n levels of hierarchy or organizational d e p a r t m e n t s ; organizational practices that systematically privilege one g r o u p of p e o p l e over another; incentive p r o g r a m s that e n c o u r a g e unfair competition; a n d a code of silence a b o u t organizational ethics.

Exercise

6.1

•

Many sen/ice organizations have as one of their main values a focus on the customer. This value often manifests itself in policies such as "Never say no" or 'The customer is always right." Could this policy lead to unethical behavior on the part of the employee? How about unethical behavior by the customer? How so?

*

If some cultures are more ethical than others, how does this judgment affect the way organizational leaders should approach the merging of two different cultures, especially if they are based in different national cultures? Can one nationality's customs be inherently more ethical than those of another? How do you decide?

126 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Ethical Considerations of Cultural Control Specific t y p e s of ethical d i l e m m a s arise from cultural control. M a n a g i n g b y m a n a g i n g culture is largely focused o n integration of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals a n d v a l u e s i n t o t h e lives a n d choices of m e m b e r s . W h e n m e m b e r s accept these v a l u e s as their o w n , they b e c o m e identified w i t h the organ i z a t i o n a n d m a k e decisions t h a t are in line w i t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals. T h u s , organizational leaders n e e d n o t closely s u p e r v i s e e m p l o y e e s or i n u n d a t e t h e m w i t h l o n g lists of rules a n d regulations. C u l t u r a l control is u s u a l l y m o r e palatable to e m p l o y e e s t h a n b u r e a u cratic or technological control. But the aspect t h a t m a k e s cultural control so effective a n d well received—its u n o b t r u s i v e n a t u r e — i s also w h a t m a k e s it potentially o p p r e s s i v e . Because cultural control is a l m o s t invisible, it is difficult for e m p l o y e e s to discuss or resist. Therefore, it is i m p o r t a n t to a n a l y z e the ethical implications specific to culture m a n a g e m e n t . C u l t u r a l control can b e unethical for five m a i n reasons:

1. Organizations m a y couch participatory or team-based methods as being helpful to organizational members, although the programs are devised b y top management to induce higher productivity, efficiency, and increased organizational profits. 2. Employees m a y control themselves on behalf of management in a w a y that encourages unfair or unethical practices (such as, in the case of Walmart and Albertson's overtime without pay). In addition, rules that e m p l o y e e s devise for themselves m a y be more rigid than traditional bureaucratic rules devised by management. 3. Cultural control is s o strong and effective in large part because employees d o not realize they are being controlled. This type of control, if not managed effectively, can obscure and stifle opportunities for resistance, discussion, and change. 4. Organizations that maintain strong cultures are the ones that can be most conducive to unethical behavior (e.g., consider the Watergate example offered in the opening of this chapter). Without proper intervention, strong cultures can harbor groupthink and a gang mentality that can lead to unethical decisions. 5. Cultural management relies o n the inculcation of value premises in e m ployees, but this inculcation might lead employees to simply follow organizational rules without contemplating or deliberating on the rules and various w a y s in which organizational goals should be accomplished.

The Ethics of Cultural Control

Τ

127

T h e p r e c e d i n g situations give rise to "unethical potentialities" of cultural control. Nevertheless, organizational leaders can t e m p e r these potentialities. The following section offers several guidelines that c a n h e l p cultural m a n a g e r s better e v a l u a t e the ethics of cultural a n d u n o b trusive control systems. Before b e g i n n i n g the discussion, w e s h o u l d e m phasize that organizations are fraught w i t h complexities a n d practical concerns. The guidelines offered are n o t rules d e s i g n e d for a simple j u d g m e n t . Rather, the guidelines serve as w a y s of considering ethical implications of cultural control p r o g r a m s . 1. Cultural control programs should allow for employee voice—both in devising the program and in offering feedback about the effects of the program. T h r o u g h participation a n d the e n c o u r a g e m e n t that e m p l o y e e s b e involved in organizational decision m a k i n g , organizational leaders allow for e m p l o y e e feedback. Employee c o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t ethics a n d organizational p r o b l e m s can lead to a healthy, m o r a l organizational a t m o s phere. O p e n , reflective c o m m u n i c a t i o n a m o n g organizational m e m b e r s can w a r d off the d a n g e r s (such as g r o u p t h i n k ) often associated w i t h strong culture companies. Research s h o w s that e m p l o y e e s often m i s u n d e r s t a n d organizational ethical m a n d a t e s , a n d that e v e n w h e n e m p l o y e e s d o u n d e r s t a n d organizational values, they are often u n s u r e h o w to a p p l y t h e m to e v e r y d a y practices. Increased c o m m u n i c a t i o n a b o u t ethics (especially w h e n these conversations s e e m m o s t a w k w a r d ) is i m p o r t a n t for clarifying organizational goals a n d sidestepping m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . Organizational leaders s h o u l d also keep in m i n d that participatory decision-making p r o g r a m s are m o s t conducive to organizational success w h e n they are fostered—not forced—by m a n a g e m e n t a n d w h e n e m p l o y e e s h a v e the o p p o r t u n i t y to voice their concerns a b o u t the p r o g r a m s . E m p l o y e e voice n o t only can m a k e participatory decision m a k i n g a n d cultural control m o r e fair, b u t it can also increase the chances of organizational survival. 2. Organizations should encourage employee participation in understanding how values differently benefit certain groups in the organization. A s discussed in the chapter o n framing, savvy organizational leaders k n o w h o w to couch concepts in a w a y that is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e a n d acceptable to the p e o p l e they are speaking too. Most m a n a g e r s t h u s frame their p r o g r a m s in w a y s that seem to benefit all e m p l o y e e s (through, for in-

128 Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

stance, increased e m p o w e r m e n t ) . Nevertheless, participatory decisionm a k i n g a n d cultural control p r o g r a m s are also devised to m e e t m a n a g e m e n t ' s goals of increased efficiency, productivity, a n d profits. Organizational leaders easily underestimate the w a y s cultural control p r o g r a m s m a y b e stronger t h a n other forms or control. For instance, e m p l o y e e s m i g h t actively subjugate themselves to organizational cultural values in a w a y they w o u l d n o t to m o r e obtrusive bureaucratic rules. Organizations h a v e a responsibility to g u a r d e m p l o y e e s against the uncritical acceptance that often accompanies cultural control. O n e w a y to avoid uncritical acceptance is t h r o u g h active "conversation" w i t h employees a b o u t organizational issues. To lessen perceived p o w e r imbalances b e t w e e n m a n a g e m e n t a n d workers, organizations enter into dialogues w h e r e m e m b e r s discuss a w i d e variety of questions or issues. N o t only c a n m e m b e r s discuss o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals a n d the m e a n s to reach those goals, b u t they also discuss h o w those goals privilege one g r o u p over another. The aim is not consensus or agreement b u t e n s u r i n g that all voices are heard. T h r o u g h the voicing of all ideas, organizations can b e c o m e creative. M a n a g e r s m i g h t keep in m i n d Aristotle's " g o l d e n m e a n " — w i t h o n e e n d m a r k e d b y excess a n d the other m a r k e d b y deficiency. Excess w o u l d refer to organizations only w o r r y i n g a b o u t m a n a g e m e n t goals, a n d d e ficiency w o u l d refer to organizations n o t w o r r y i n g at all a b o u t m a n a g e m e n t goals. Of course, organizations m u s t consider productivity, efficiency, a n d profit, b u t t h e y s h o u l d also c o n s i d e r m e m b e r s ' voices. Organizational leaders s h o u l d p u r s u e economic interests while at the s a m e time considering the best social interests. 3. Organization leaders should encourage subcultural as well as individual creativity and deliberation. O n e of the d a n g e r s of a strong culture c o m p a n y is that it m a y n o t b e able to change quickly e n o u g h to c o m p e t e in t u r b u lent environments. Charles C o n r a d (1993) explains that "strong c u l t u r e " organizations can encourage people to act unethically. To counteract this ethical d i l e m m a , it is in an organization's best interest to encourage variability, plurality, a n d creativity in b o t h individual organizational m e m bers a n d organizational subcultures. Indeed, Aristotle explains in the Nicomachean Ethics that individuals are m o s t h u m a n w h e n they h a v e free will to deliberate o n the different m e a n s or alternatives for meeting a certain goal. In other w o r d s , p e o p l e

The Ethics of Cultural Control Τ 129 cannot be virtuous or truly h u m a n unless they are engaged in choosing the w a y s they go about meeting goals. Based on this conception, organization leaders must not so thoroughly inculcate organizational values in an individual that the individual does not or cannot engage in deliberation or contemplation. When the power of choice and deliberation are replaced with complete inculcation, employees cannot be full people, because they are engulfed in an environment where choice has n o meaning.

4. Organizations should adopt a situational system of ethics. Law-based ethical systems are based on creating universal norms without consideration of the context for the law to be exercised. Several organizational scholars have suggested that more situated ethics or ethics based in care are more appropriate to examining the complexities of today's organizational life. In the turbulent world of work, organizational leaders need to "make it u p along the way." A s organizations head into the 21st century, leaders will need to look around and consider the context before deciding what ought to be done. A situational ethic places communication in the center and considers the idea that an act is g o o d if it probably will result in, or is intended to result in, a balance of g o o d over evil. A n ethical stance that considers context may be especially appropriate for cultural managers, because it highlights the importance of relationship.

The preceding four guidelines offer w a y s for managers to think about the ethical implications of cultural control. A s discussed throughout this book, cultural management and control offer many advantages. M e m bers like to feel identified with an organization and therefore generally prefer cultural control over bureaucratic and technological control. Nevertheless, organizational leaders w h o choose to use cultural management mechanisms and participatory decision-making programs also have a responsibility to organizational members. This responsibility includes allowing for and encouraging member voice and offering forums to discuss organizational goals and w h o these goals privilege. In doing so, organizations encourage employees to be creative and deliberative— actions that not only guard against homogeneity and groupthink but also encourage employees to think about their choices and thus be "fully human."

130

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Exercise

6.2

* What are some of the potential dangers of cultural control? *

Have you ever been involved in an organization where values were inculcated so thoroughly that organizational members engaged in groupthink? What was the result?

* What are some of the ways that organizational leaders could have warded off the dangers of cultural control?

^

Creating an Ethics Program

Despite the unethical potentialities of cultural a p p r o a c h e s , organizational leaders s h o u l d r e m e m b e r that ethics can b e positively m a n a g e d . Organizational leaders can incorporate ethics in their overall cultural m a n a g e m e n t plan. The actions of organizational founders a n d leaders h a v e a strong influence over e m p l o y e e behavior. By placing ethical considerations o n the c o m p a n y ' s priority list, m a n a g e r s send a direct m e s sage that ethical activity is a n i m p o r t a n t organizational value. Organizational ethics p r o g r a m s are a relatively n e w occurrence. The practice of ethics training a n d offering a n ethics o m b u d s m a n or officer to g u i d e ethics a n d h a n d l e questions b e g a n in the early 1980s. According to t h e Ethics R e s o u r c e Center, in 1997, 60% of U.S. c o m p a n i e s h a d codes of ethics, a n d 90% of Fortune 500 firms trained e m p l o y e e s in ethics (Greengard, 1997, p . 44). A s w e h e a d into the 21st century, visionary organizational leaders are realizing that the creation of ethical p r o g r a m s is an integral p a r t of m a n a g i n g culture. Creating a vision is imperative to g o o d cultural m a n a g e m e n t . T h e s a m e h o l d s true for ethics. A n y o n e w h o considers a formal ethical vision as w i n d o w dressing s h o u l d think of the p o w e r a n d credence given to famous ethical lists such as the Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s . A n ethical credo p r o v i d e s such a vision. T h r o u g h the creation of a n ethics c o d e or credo, b o t h m a n a g e r s a n d employees are p r o v i d e d w i t h a g u i d e according to w h i c h they can u n d e r s t a n d , direct, a n d evaluate organizational decisions. Organizational leaders s h o u l d consider several different factors

The Ethics of Cultural Control

Ύ

131

w h e n devising the ethical credo. Specifically, the credo should (a) parallel the organizational vision, (b) avoid a cookie-cutter approach, (c) b e realistic and accessible, and (d) clarify the relations of ethics to the overall company goals or ends.

Parallel the Organizational

Vision

Codes of ethics should develop naturally and in parallel form to the organizational vision statement. If the formal organizational vision articulates that employees are the organization's number one resource, then a corresponding ethical credo should emphasize loyalty and preservation of jobs, status, and well-being. On the other hand, if the vision statement articulates an organizational priority of top sales and profits, the ethical credo might d o more to accentuate employee actions that place the customer as the number one priority. Leaders should devise the ethical credo to extend and parallel the vision rather than contradict or confuse it.

Avoid a Cookie-Cutter, Simplistic Approach What should be clear from this discussion is that there can be n o one ethical credo that is right for every company. Although most organizational credos illustrate similar elements (including mandates such as "Don't steal" and "Treat other employees with respect"), credos will and should differ based on the organization's particular vision and values. Organizational priorities change from year to year, and a useful code of ethics will shift with the needs of society and the organization. Organizational leaders should revisit their company's ethics credo at least annually. Through yearly discussions, the credo can be updated to fit changing organizational issues and environments. What might be relevant one year could be defunct the next year, and organizational members often take note of the timeliness of organizational documents as evidence of their importance. If organizational members, for instance, read in the organization's code of conduct, "Employees shall not take office supplies home, including pens, paper, dittos, or typewriter tapes," they will instantly realize that the ethics statement has not been revised since the d a w n of computers. A n d if management does not care about ethics, w h y should they?

132 • LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION Credos Must Be Accessible, Realistic, and Doable For ethical credos to h a v e a n effect o n e v e r y d a y behaviors, e m p l o y e e s n e e d to perceive their contents as realistic a n d doable. Part of this involves ensuring that credos are accessible to employees. Organizational leaders can d o this b y placing the credo in visible areas in the organization, such as above the fax m a c h i n e or in the break room. For instance, Johnson & Johnson lets employees a n d visitors k n o w h o w seriously it takes its credo, " O u r first responsibility is to those w h o u s e o u r p r o d u c t s a n d services." T h e credo, carved into a granite block, greets e v e r y o n e w h o passes t h r o u g h its m a i n reception area. C r e d o s s h o u l d also b e s i m p l e to remember. A s discussed earlier, value statements can n e v e r explain the exact actions for every organizational d i l e m m a . In fact, w h e n they are too detailed, such as in the case of P R . Inc.'s "Little Instruction Book," they can b e perceived as selfcontradictory. Therefore, organizational leaders s h o u l d u s e simple m e s sages that encourage employees to exercise creativity a n d individuality to reach organizational rules. For instance, messages such as " R e m e m b e r that o u r coemployees are just as i m p o r t a n t as o u r c u s t o m e r s " p r o v i d e guidance w i t h o u t dictating a specific action (that m a y b e unethical in s o m e contexts). T h e task of balancing simplicity a n d specificity is a difficult one. M a n a g e r s m u s t j u d g e for themselves the degree of specificity that will w o r k best in their particular organization.

Clarify the Means and Ends O n e of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t aspects of a n ethical credo is that it e m phasizes the c o m p a n y ' s overall e n d goals a n d priorities. Is the overall goal to m a k e a profit for the shareholders? To i m p r o v e the environment? To please customers? With clear organizational e n d goals, employees are better a p t to u n d e r s t a n d h o w to b e h a v e along t h e way. Some organizations h a v e chosen to g u i d e their core ideology in a w a y that goes b e y o n d just m a k i n g money. For instance, Paula Tompkins Pribble (1990) analyzed a M i d w e s t e r n medical technology firm called BE. Organizational leaders at BE m a d e it clear to employees t h r o u g h the ethical credo a n d ongoing organizational stories that the c o m p a n y ' s first priority w a s "restoring p e o p l e to full life." M a k i n g money, although important, w a s secondary. T h r o u g h the

The Ethics of Cultural Control Ψ 133 continual repetition of this theme, employees learned to behave in w a y s to achieve the priority of restoring full life. It is important that organizational leaders devise ethical credos in such a w a y that employees understand organizational priorities and e n d goals. In summary, organizational leaders should consider several different guidelines w h e n creating an ethics credo, including that it parallels organizational vision, avoids a cookie-cutter approach, is accessible and realistic, and clarifies organizational means and ends. Ethical credos serve as a strong base for an ethical culture. Nevertheless, o n their o w n , credos serve as templates. They must be fleshed out with ongoing programs and actions to be practical. Just as the Ten Commandments is contextualized in a long book of stories, organizational ethical rules can only come alive w h e n employees are given the opportunity to discuss the stories and contexts in which ethical considerations come into play

ψ

"Walking the Talk"

James C Collins and Jerry I. Porras (1994) studied 18 companies to figure out what made them "visionary." According to the authors, these companies had in common leaders w h o indicated a consistent commitment to an overall organizational identity and value program. A n ongoing commitment to ethics can come in a variety of forms. The following section considers these specifications: the inclusion of ethics in organizational socialization programs, ongoing programs that are understandable and fun yet sufficiently complex, implementation of an ethics officer or task force, and organizational structures that motivate employees to act ethically. Just as framing must connect with visioning for the effective management of an overall culture program, cultural leaders need to attend to ongoing practices as well as credos for ethical programs to become a substantive part of the organization.

Including Ethics in the Socialization Process Employees enter organizations with varying ideas of what is right and wrong and what should be top priority. This variance in values increases w h e n the company employs people from different national cul-

134 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

hires. Therefore, it is extremely i m p o r t a n t that organizations b e g i n to i m m e r s e e m p l o y e e s in the organization's values i m m e d i a t e l y o n arrival. According to the organizational c o m m u n i c a t i o n scholars A n n e Nicotera a n d Donald C u s h m a n (1992), w h o studied ethics p r o g r a m s at GE a n d IBM, "If the value systems of individuals d o n o t c o m p l e m e n t the v a l u e system of their organization, those individuals will eventually b e faced w i t h insoluble ethical d i l e m m a s " (p. 453). Irresolvable d i l e m m a s are n o t beneficial to either the individual or the organization. T h r o u g h socialization p r o g r a m s that are infused w i t h ethical values, n e w e m p l o y e e s are able to u n d e r s t a n d the priorities of the organization a n d w h e t h e r organizational values can m e s h w i t h their o w n . If they d o n o t m e s h , e m p l o y e e s can m a k e a quick escape, saving themselves a n d the c o m p a n y p r o b l e m s d o w n the line. M a n a g e r s s h o u l d n o t only share the formal ethics credo d u r i n g orientation b u t s u p p l e m e n t the rules a n d regulations w i t h stories that illustrate classic w a y s employees h a v e dealt w i t h ethical d i l e m m a s in the past. Leaders can also p r o v i d e n e w e m p l o y e e s w i t h tokens that illustrate certain ethical v a l u e s . Ethical r e m i n d e r s such as p o s t e r s a n d p a p e r weights m i g h t b e corny, b u t they d o indicate leadership's values. For instance, at the medical technology c o m p a n y BE, the C E O p r o v i d e d n e w employees w i t h a medallion in w h i c h science a n d technology w e r e illustrated b y a n "electrical field raising a m o d e r n d a y L a z a r u s " (Pribble, 1990, p . 262). This w a s just one of the w a y s the BE C E O u r g e d e m p l o y e e s to identify w i t h the c o m p a n y ' s overall ethic of restoring full life.

Making Programs Understandable and Fun, Yet Sufficiently Complex G o o d cultural m a n a g e r s u n d e r s t a n d that creating w o r t h w h i l e ethical p r o g r a m s is like w a l k i n g a tightrope. They m u s t balance b e t w e e n the goals of m a k i n g sure ethics are presented in a n u n d e r s t a n d a b l e a n d fun m a n n e r — b u t in a w a y that highlights the complexity of m o s t ethical dilemmas. O n e a t t e m p t to m a k e ethics simple h a s already b e e n discussed— P.R. Inc.'s "Little Instruction Book." The b o o k d i d h a v e the a d v a n t a g e s of simplicity a n d familiarity. Most employees h a d positive (or at least n o t negative) feelings t o w a r d the p o p u l a r series, Life's Little Instruction Book (Brown, 1991). M o d e l e d after the p o p u l a r series, P.R. Inc.'s instruc-

The Ethics of Cultural Control Ψ 135 TABLE 6.1 C o m p l e x Ethical D i l e m m a s Hypothetical Questions to Consider A female applicant holds the perfect credentials to become our company's new international trademark attorney. Unfortunately, company executives are concerned that overseas strategic alliances will not take a female attorney seriously and therefore will refuse to work with us. What do we do? Our company has been plagued with overtime for the past 3 weeks and the vice president has promised employees that they will not have to work overtime in the next month. Because of the overtime, employees are behind on current client work, and we have promised a long-term client that we will finish her long-overdue media campaign within the week. At the last minute, the company learns of a new business opportunity that could net the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Work needs to be completed by the end of the week. As the vice president, what do you do? A customer asks an employee for the company's product but cannot afford to buy it at the company's prices. From a past job, the employee knows how the customer could get the product at a cheaper price. What should the employee do?

tions w e r e listed simply a n d acontextually. O n e w a s listed every d a y o n the e m p l o y e e ' s daily newsletter. A l t h o u g h this p r o v i d e d ethical m a n dates in easy-to-swallow bite-size pieces, it unfortunately d i d n o t p r o v i d e a context for instructions. The p r o g r a m w a s easy to u n d e r s t a n d a n d familiar, b u t it m a y h a v e b e e n so simple so as to b e defunct. Ethical p r o g r a m s m u s t g o b e y o n d simple acontextual instructions. Employees d o n o t w a n t to feel that ethical p r o g r a m s insult their intelligence, a n d o b v i o u s rules such as " D o n ' t steal" or " D o n ' t lie" can d o so. O n e w a y to r e m e d y such a p r o b l e m is to incorporate case s t u d y analyses of ethical d i l e m m a s as p a r t of a n o n g o i n g ethical p r o g r a m . Possible dil e m m a s could include those illustrated in Table 6.1. C o m p l e x ethical q u e s t i o n s invite discussion a n d deliberation. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l leaders s h o u l d allow m e m b e r s to creatively think a b o u t these situations. After in-depth deliberation leaders can offer their o w n o p i n i o n of the situation, w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t complex ethical d i l e m m a s rarely h a v e a single " r i g h t " answer.

136

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Implementation of an Ethics Officer or Task Force The single largest predictor of a successful ethics p r o g r a m is b u y - i n a n d visible s u p p o r t from top m a n a g e m e n t . Charismatic organizational leaders h a v e a t r e m e n d o u s impact o n the w a y s organizational m e m b e r s think a n d b e h a v e a n d this cannot b e ignored in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of a n ethics p r o g r a m . W h e n t o p m a n a g e m e n t m a k e s ethics a visible priority, other e m p l o y e e s are m o r e likely to consider ethical implications in their e v e r y d a y decision m a k i n g . In addition to b e h a v i n g in a n ethical m a n n e r themselves, m a n a g e r s can indicate ethical involvement a couple of different w a y s . First, organizations can a p p o i n t a n ethics officer or o m b u d s m a n . The p e r s o n in this position ensures that the organization's ethical systems are functioning. H e or she is involved in ethics training, b o t h d u r i n g orientation a n d t h r o u g h ongoing p r o g r a m s . This p e r s o n also p r o v i d e s g u i d ance to e m p l o y e e s experiencing ethical d i l e m m a s a n d serves as a contact p e r s o n for employees to report suspected w r o n g d o i n g . The ethics officer s h o u l d encourage o p e n a n d honest c o m m u n i c a t i o n from e m p l o y e e s a n d b e discreet w i t h information p r o v i d e d . Second, organizations can i m p l e m e n t a n ethics committee to oversee, interpret, a n d continually revise a n d u p d a t e the organization's c o d e of ethics. Early in the ethics initiative, this committee can form the ethical p r o g r a m or code it will eventually look after. This committee is also often in charge of deliberating on information received from the ethics officer a b o u t misconduct in the organization. T h r o u g h the implementation of highly visible positions, w h e r e the sole or m a i n priority is to i m p l e m e n t ethics training p r o g r a m s a n d h e l p organizational m e m b e r s w i t h ethical d i l e m m a s , e m p l o y e e s are continually r e m i n d e d of the importance of ethics in the organization.

Organizational Structures That Motivate Employees to Act Ethically E m p l o y e e s w o r k to receive rewards. The t y p e of r e w a r d s desired r a n g e from m o n e t a r y c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d p r o m o t i o n s to relationships a n d praise. It m a k e s sense that employees are m o r e likely to act ethically w h e n d o i n g so simultaneously h e l p s t h e m achieve the r e w a r d s they

The Ethics of Cultural Control Τ 137 strive for. Therefore, m a n a g e r s m u s t e n s u r e that organizational structures reinforce ethical behavior o n a daily basis. For instance, b o n u s e s , raises, a n d p r o m o t i o n s s h o u l d consider the ethical actions of employees. Simply including ethical considerations as a section in e m p l o y e e evaluations can p r o v i d e a n i m p o r t a n t r e m i n d e r that organizations take ethics seriously. Because actions s p e a k l o u d e r t h a n w o r d s , organizational leaders n e e d to w a l k their talk. If a n e m ployee acts unethically—especially if this e m p l o y e e is of h i g h r a n k or visibility—other e m p l o y e e s will p a y attention to h o w the organization deals w i t h the wrongdoer. The m a n a g e m e n t consultant Peter Robertson recently n o t e d , "I k n o w an executive vice-president w h o got fired for sexual h a r a s s m e n t [The c o m p a n y ] d i d n ' t h a v e to d o a lot of training after t h a t " (Sixel, 1996, as cited in C o n r a d & Poole, 1998, p . 388). Actions speak louder t h a n w o r d s . The real issue is credibility. If organizational structures are n o t p u t into place that r e w a r d ethical activity a n d p u n i s h unethical actions, t h e n the ethical credo remains only w o r d s o n paper. Likewise, if the ethical officer or ethics committee consists of low-power, u n d e r r e s p e c t e d personnel, then other organizational m e m b e r s are unlikely to take ethics seriously. Obviously, organizations m u s t pick a n d choose w h e r e they will e x p e n d energy a n d place their best a n d brightest employees. Just as w i t h a n y other set of cultural values, b y r e m e m b e r i n g the i m p o r t a n t interplay b e t w e e n visioning a n d framing, organizational leaders can imp l e m e n t a n effective ethics p r o g r a m .

Exercise

63

Read carefully the following case based on Carey (1998, p. 57): Lockheed Martin, a large Maryland-based manufacturing company, has found a creative and fun way to include ethics in ongoing management training. Based on Scott Adams's popular cartoon Dilbert, employees have learned about ethics through a humorous, interactive board game called "The Ethics Challenge." The game, which was played by all 175,000 Lockheed employees in 1997, presents hypothetical ethical dilemmas that employees must deliberate on. Employees must choose one of four possible responses. The creativity and humor of the game derive from the cartoon's characters, who provide the responses.

138 •

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Dogbert, the "evil human resources director," always provides a funny or cynical response. His response often represents what many employees might think but not have the gumption to say. Through this approach,everyone can laugh and feel comfortable and then get into a more serious discussion about how they would approach the situation. The game was introduced in late 1996 in a management training session. In the early months of 1997, Lockheed employees around the nation got wind of the game and started calling headquarters to find out when they could play. Headquarters was amazed that employees were actually asking for their ethics training. Another advantage of the game was that it required virtually no training. Employees only needed to watch a 6-minute video on the rules of the game, hosted by senior management and Dogbert. Did it work? According to an internal Lockheed survey conducted after the implementation of the game, employees cited improvement in the involvement of immediate supervisors in helping subordinates who spoke with them about ethical dilemmas. Since the implementation of "The Ethics Challenge," Lockheed has provided the game to more than 1,500 corporations and educational groups. •

What are some of the advantages of "The Ethics Challenge?"

•

Keeping in mind the guidelines offered in this chapter, what would you say made the game work?

•

Can you foresee any dangers with the use of such a game for ethics training? If so, what are they? How could management overcome these dangers?

•

Do you think that the game will be just as effective at organizations other than Lockheed? Why or why not?

^

Ethical Considerations of Cultural Change

C u l t u r a l m a n a g e r s s h o u l d also consider the potential ethical p r o b l e m s of c o n d u c t i n g a cultural analysis. S t u d y a n d intervention h a v e direct effects o n p e o p l e ' s lives. N e u t r a l i t y or certainty are n e v e r p o s s i b l e . E d w i n Schein (1992) identifies t w o m a i n risks of cultural interventions.

The Ethics of Cultural Control Ψ 139

The Analysis of the Culture Might Be Incorrect Whenever a person attempts to describe an organization's culture, he or she runs the risk of simply being wrong. If decisions are m a d e on incorrect evaluations of the organization's culture, serious harm could be done. Errors are most likely to be due to an incomplete analysis that relies too heavily on official organizational documents and espoused values. Cultural analysts should remember that everyday behavior is just as important, if not more important, in creating and sustaining organizational culture as formal mission statements and ethical credos. Therefore, analysts should be wary of offering advice based solely on organizational documents and interviews with top-level management. Analysts can incorporate considerations of values-in-use through observing day-to-day activities and interviewing employees from all levels in the organization.

Organizational Members May Not Be Ready for the Analysis Often, organizational leaders give little forethought to h o w they are going to use the information derived from a cultural analysis of their organization. Just as therapy can reveal things to an individual that are painful, organizational culture analyses can provide information that is not easy for organizational members to hear. Therefore, cultural analysts must go beyond dropping their cultural analyses in employees' in boxes. They should also consider providing recommendations for employees about h o w they can best understand and make sense of the information, especially if the information is negative, surprising, or depressing. In agreeing to perform a cultural analysis, the cultured analyst simultaneously takes on the responsibility for dealing with the consequences of such an intervention. Being an ethical leader in today's organizations is a difficult process. It means going beyond living up to one's o w n moral code to maintaining an organizational culture that motivates and rewards ethical behavior from all employees. Managers can be reassured in knowing that ethics has its advantages. Ethical employees tend to outperform others, selling more products and receiving fewer complaints. Employees also tend to be more accountable in an ethical culture and take responsibility for mis-

140 •

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

takes. Finally, a n ethical organization t e n d s to b e m o r e predictable a n d calm because employees feel free to a d d r e s s ethical concerns as they arise rather t h a n allowing t h e m to t u r n into long-term p r o b l e m s . Maintaining a n ethical organization, h o w e v e r difficult, p a y s off in t h e end. Based on the preceding discussion of the d a n g e r s of cultural control, the steps to creating a n ethics p r o g r a m , a n d ethical considerations of change a n d analysis initiatives, the following list of questions m a k e s u p a n ethical a u d i t for cultural m a n a g e r s . Like all such lists, this a u d i t is m o s t useful w h e n it is a d a p t e d to fit the specific organization a n d accomp a n i e d b y a contextualized discussion of typical ethical d i l e m m a s . The a u d i t is designed to serve as a base from w h i c h cultural m a n a g e r s can g a u g e ethics in their organizations. Organizational leaders w h o w i s h to m a n a g e culture in a n ethical m a n n e r s h o u l d w o r k t o w a r d p r o g r a m s that w o u l d allow t h e m to a n s w e r "Yes" to the following 24 questions.

An Ethical Audit 1. D o leaders consider both organizational structures and individual behaviors that lead to unethical activity? 2. Are organizational decisions held up to environmental scrutiny and d o leaders invite internal as well as external dissent? 3. Are value statements clear and noncontradictory? 4. Are structures in place that facilitate interdepartmental communication? 5. Are structures in place that deter excessive power differences between supervisors and subordinates? 6. Are structures in place that deter unfair employee competition? 7. Does the organization balance its practices and rituals so they d o not systematically discriminate against a certain group of people? 8. D o leaders encourage ethical discussion and deliberation? 9. D o leaders allow for open forums where employees can discuss the implications and dangers of cultural control? 10. D o organizational programs encourage individual and subcultural creativity? 11. D o e s the credo encourage organizational members to consider the culture's context w h e n making an ethical decision?

The Ethics of Cultural Control Ψ 141 12. Is the ethical credo derived from the overall organizational vision? 13. Do organizational leaders allow for, listen to, and incorporate employee voice in developing the credo? 14. Is the credo understandable and realistic, yet not overly simplistic? 15. Does the credo go beyond emphasizing the short term and obvious? 16. Does the credo allow for self-reflection and discussion? 17. Does the credo clarify overall end goals of the organization? 18. Are organizational leaders walking their talk? 19. Are ethical values communicated to employees in a fun, yet sufficiently complex, manner? 20. Is a formal ethics officer or task force developed in the organization? 21. Are ethics infused into the organization's socialization program? 22. Are organizational structures built in to reward ethical actions and sanction unethical action? 23. Have organizational leaders considered the implications of conducting an ethical analysis? 24. Are organizational leaders prepared for common reactions people have toward organizational change?

^

Review Questions

•

What are some of the organizational cultural elements that are conducive to unethical behavior?

Τ

Cultural control has several dangers. What are they? What can managers do to overcome these potential problems?

Τ

What are some guidelines managers can consider when devising an ethical credo?

V How can organizational leaders make their ethical values come alive through ongoing programs and organizational structures? Τ

Why must managers be aware of ethics when conducting a cultural intervention or change initiative?

142

^

•

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Discussion Questions

V Can seemingly harmless organizational rituals, such as the company golf game, serve to systematically privilege some organizational groups? Is it possible for organizational leaders to prevent systematic privilege? If so, how? Ψ

What are some specific ethical considerations managers should keep in mind when managing a diverse workforce? How does globalization affect the way ethical credos and programs are designed and implemented?

Τ

Have you ever been involved in designing or implementing an ethical program? If so, what were some of the challenges to doing so? How were these challenges met?

Ψ Have you been aware of ethics programs being in place at organizations where you have worked? If so, were they taken seriously? Why or why not?

^

References and Recommended Readings

Brown, H. J., Jr. (1991). Life's little instruction book. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press. Carey, R. (1998, April). The ethics challenge. Successful Meetings, 47,57. Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. N e w York: HarperCollins. Conrad, C. (1993). The ethical nexus. N o r w o o d , NJ: Ablex. Conrad, C , & Poole, M. S. (1998). Strategic organizational communication: Into the twenty-first century (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Deetz, S., Cohen, D., & Edley, P. (1997). Toward a dialogic ethics in the context of international business. In F. Casmir (ed.). Ethics in international and intercultural communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Greengard, S. (1997, October). 50% of your e m p l o y e e s are lying, cheating & stealing. Workforce, 76(10), 44-53. Nicotera, Α., & Cushman, D. (1992). Organizational ethics: A within-organization view. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20,437-463. Pribble, P. T. (1990). Making an ethical commitment: A rhetorical case study of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 38,255-267. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seeger, M. (1997). Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: H a m p t o n Press.

7 τ Culture and Technological Change

Overview Technology is a central feature of many organizations today. New technologies are frequently implemented to increase efficiency, enhance productivity, and improve profitability. Although the most common way to think about technology today focuses our attention on communication and information technologies, technology can involve the implementation of any tool system that alters the way work is done. For implementing new technological systems in an organization, several factors bear consideration. Technology inevitably has an effect on the organizational culture by affecting the ways in which organizational members must interact with one another to accomplish routine tasks. Before ascertaining how the implementation of new technology may impact the organizational culture, developing a clear sense of the ways different processes become interrelated can be helpful. Once new systerns take hold in an organization, the structure of power relationships may be fundamentally altered, and culture may be affected as various organizational dynamics change the way members think about and make sense of their organizational experience. 143

144

Ψ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

For these reasons, several central questions should be asked regarding the organizational impact of technological changes. This chapter explores the issues surrounding the implementation of new technological systems and probes how such change may impact the organization at a deeper level. The suggested case study illustrates some of these issues as they have played out in context.

Key Objectives of the Chapter Τ

To aid in identifying the multiple ways in which technological change may impact an organization

•

To increase understanding of how technology may affect common work practices in the organization

Ψ

To increase understanding of the influence of cultures on the understanding of information and role of information technologies

Τ

To explain the impact of information technologies on power and knowledge dynamics in the organization

Τ

To aid the management of culture through technological change

Ψ

To aid leaders' ability to identify who will be most directly affected by any technologically induced changes that occur

Τ

To develop skills in implementing technological changes to complement rather than disrupt functional systems in the organization

Questions to Consider W

What business processes can be enhanced by technological change?

W

What cultural systems are embedded in the current processes?

Ύ

How can technology complement cultural systems?

Ψ

In what ways might such changes create tensions or problems in the organization?

Τ

What evidence have you seen of resistance to technological innovations? How much of this resistance is grounded in cultural features, underlying values, or assumptions about people and the work process?

Culture and Technological Change Ψ 145

W How Are Technology and Culture Related? In every organization, the routine processes required to accomplish d a y to-day tasks organize b e h a v i o r a n d interaction in certain w a y s . The n a ture of that interaction h e l p s s h a p e the w a y organizational m e m b e r s think a b o u t the w o r k that they d o a n d h o w they c o m e to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t organizational m a n a g e r s value. The u s e of technology in the w o r k place directly affects h o w k n o w l e d g e a b o u t w o r k is c o m m u n i c a t e d . W h e t h e r the tools in question are information technology (IT) p e r se or not, information a b o u t o n e ' s w o r k gets conveyed in the processes required to carry o u t day-to-day tasks. Technology is often t h o u g h t of as complex, intricate, a n d h a r d to u n d e r s t a n d . A l t h o u g h this is s o m e t i m e s true, for the p u r p o s e s here technology is t h o u g h t of as a n y tool or resource that is u s e d to transform organizational i n p u t s to o u t p u t s . T h u s , technology can b e as simple as a p e n a n d p a p e r or as complex as a state-of-the-art w o r l d w i d e cellular access system. Each s h a p e s practices a n d each s h a p e s culture. In regard to c o m m u n i c a t i o n technologies, organizational culture is influenced b y the w a y s in w h i c h organizational m e m b e r s receive inform a t i o n a n d store k n o w l e d g e a b o u t their jobs. Technological i m p a c t is n e v e r simple n o r even. Subcultures in a n organization u s e technologies differently in the accomplishment of their tasks a n d are oriented differently t o w a r d IT a n d its usefulness. Carole Groleau a n d James Taylor (1996) p r o v i d e a useful s t u d y of technological changes in the p u r c h a s i n g process at a large organization that d e m o n s t r a t e h o w a failure to account for the e m b e d d e d n a t u r e of w o r k processes in organizational life can lead to their ineffective i m p l e mentation. Their s t u d y tracked the process of c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n in the p u r c h a s i n g d e p a r t m e n t at a " c r o w n corporation." Prior to c o m p u t e r i z a tion b o t h agents a n d clerks u s e d p a p e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n to complete t h e entire p u r c h a s i n g process from the initial p u r c h a s e request, t h r o u g h the b i d d i n g process, to the final purchase. This process p r o v i d e d written documentation of all the steps along the w a y b u t took a great deal of time. To increase productivity, the corporation c o m p u t e r i z e d this process so that all d o c u m e n t a t i o n w a s stored electronically. W h a t the corporation failed to account for, however, w a s the quality of information that w a s accessible to organizational m e m b e r s all along the w a y u n d e r t h e old

146 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

system. U n d e r the n e w system the s a m e d a t a w e r e available b u t h a d b e c o m e " s e g m e n t e d " into different screens a n d formats that m a d e it difficult to access all the information at once. By r e m o v i n g decisions at different stages of the process from the context of prior decisions, organizational m e m b e r s found their tasks complicated. This case illustrates nicely h o w technology m a y complicate organizational activity if m a n a g e m e n t does not account for the w a y that an organizational task structures organizational activity a n d is w o r t h reading. In a n era w h e r e organizational p r o b l e m s are often a d d r e s s e d w i t h " u p g r a d e s , " developing a m e c h a n i s m for m o r e broadly assessing the usefulness of technological systems in performing specific operations m a y help o p e n alternatives. W h e n changes are i m p l e m e n t e d , such implementation generally falls to leaders in the organization. For this reason, a clear sense of h o w technological changes m a y impact current syst e m s a n d b e a p p r o p r i a t e d b y organizational m e m b e r s will h e l p ease the transition for those w h o will b e responsible for day-to-day interaction w i t h the modified systems.

What Counts as Information? A l t h o u g h a p p e a r i n g straightforward, the question of w h a t counts as information m a y in fact b e a n s w e r e d very differently d e p e n d i n g o n one's cultural perspective. This clash can lead to p r o b l e m s in a n organization w h e n those i n d i v i d u a l s responsible for m a k i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y assessm e n t s a n d designing or i m p l e m e n t i n g technological change r e s p o n d differently to this question than those w h o will ultimately b e responsible for integrating such change into their w o r k activities. Workers responsible for the d e v e l o p m e n t of information technology m a y h a v e a propensity for viewing information as data. Following from this perspective, information can b e stored, d i v i d e d , transmitted, reassembled, a n d analyzed. If information is n o m o r e t h a n quantifiable bits of d a t a then its context is not i m p o r t a n t to its use. This perspective is i m p o r t a n t to individuals w h o m u s t devise m e c h a n i s m s for r a p i d storage a n d retrieval of data, a n d it shapes the w a y technology is designed. This is n o t the only w a y that it can b e designed, b u t it h a s b e e n the n o r m . Those w h o m u s t u s e information o n a daily basis to m a k e decisions, however, m a y encounter frustration as decisions that h a v e evaluative consequences h a v e to b e m a d e b a s e d o n d a t a that h a v e b e e n s t r i p p e d of

Culture and Technological Change Ψ 147 TABLE 7.1 A s s u m p t i o n A b o u t Information: IT Professionals a n d Others ΓΓ Culture Assumptions About Information

Alternative Conceptualizations

Information can be accurately digitized and transmitted electronically.

This process only captures data; information must b e gained b y other interpretive processes.

Information can b e broken into pieces for convenient storage and retrieval.

Information is only useful w h e n contextualized and evaluated as part of holistic systems.

Information can b e v i e w e d as snapshots o n screen or in printed form.

Information is in constant flux; fixing it fundamentally alters its nature.

Faster is better.

Speed m a y reduce the quality of decisions made.

More is better.

Too m u c h of the w r o n g kind of information wastes time and leads to less effective decisions.

Quantifiable information leads to reliable and consistent decisions.

M u c h information m u s t be v i e w e d in qualitative form to be able to make useful and just decisions.

The less paper u s e d the more efficient the system.

S o m e tasks are d o n e better by handling paper.

SOURCE: Based on Schein (1992, p. 280).

their qualitative n a t u r e . The information required to m a k e m a n y decisions n e e d s to b e contextualized for employees to b e assured that they are m a k i n g a n accurate assessment of a situation. Before exploring the m a n y w a y s technology m a y impact organizational culture a n d structures, it is p e r h a p s useful to e x a m i n e the different cultural a s s u m p t i o n s that are e m b e d d e d in the a p p r o a c h to information technology itself. E d w i n Schein (1992) h a s outlined several a s s u m p t i o n s that information systems (IS) designers frequently h a v e for information. This h a s also allowed h i m to p o i n t to alternative w a y s of conceptualizing information that m a y lead to alternative conceptions of technological change. Table 7.1 s u m m a r i z e s these concepts. Viewing the introduction of information technologies, as m a n y IT a n d m a n a g e m e n t information systems (MIS) p e o p l e d o , as s i m p l y an i m p r o v e m e n t of efficiency o v e r l o o k s the effects of technologies o n p o w e r relations, w o r k practices, a n d values. Hence, resistance is m i s u n derstood or s i m p l y written off as antiprogress or technophobia.

148

Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Identifying Goals of Technological Change A s Groleau a n d Taylor (1996) illustrate, sets of decision-making p r o cesses are often interrelated in organizational systems, a n d encountering circumstances in w h i c h one is n o t a w a r e of the context of prior decisions m a y m a k e later decisions m o r e difficult. If processes are b r e a k i n g d o w n in an organizational system, before considering i m p l e m e n t i n g technological changes to resolve them, organizational leaders s h o u l d d e v e l o p a d e e p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their n a t u r e . Doing so m a y h e l p in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (a) w h e t h e r technology can actually resolve the p r o b l e m at h a n d , a n d (b) w h a t factors about functional aspects of current processes will n e e d to b e taken into consideration in designing a n intervention to adequately a n d appropriately a d d r e s s the problems. W h e n considering changes that will affect the w a y routine practices are carried out in the organization, it is i m p o r t a n t to consider the r a m i fications of those changes. Identify w h a t goal y o u r organization seeks to accomplish b y altering existing processes a n d then a t t e m p t to ascertain h o w those changes will affect the b r o a d e r culture. If, for example, the goal is to increase p r o d u c t i o n s p e e d or o u t p u t v o l u m e , assess w h a t m a y b e gained b y the time currently involved in the process or the speed at w h i c h items are currently p r o d u c e d . Will there b e a qualitative change in the process incurred b y changing it? Groleau a n d Taylor (1996) d e m o n s t r a t e that after c o m p u t e r i z e d m e c h a n i s m s for generating purchase orders w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d , the a d v a n t a g e s a n d disa d v a n t a g e s incurred w e r e n o t necessarily those that h a d b e e n expected. A l t h o u g h the actual time to print w a s decreased, the organizational m e m b e r s ' degree of familiarity w i t h the cases a n d s u b s e q u e n t ability to a n s w e r customer inquiries w a s significantly reduced. Similarly, the ability of a n organizational m e m b e r to easily assess w h a t h a d taken place at different stages of the decision-making process w a s inhibited b y the form a t in w h i c h the information w a s n o w accessible. If the goal of technological change is to increase m e m b e r access to multiple sources of data pertaining to a given decision issue, consideration m u s t b e given to the w a y data are presented in the n e w form. It m a y m a k e intuitive sense that employees w h o can access information directly from their d e s k t o p terminals can save time b y n o t h a v i n g to find files of certain information. But if the information is n o t available in a m a n n e r in w h i c h different pieces of information can easily b e c o m p a r e d a n d evaluated simultaneously, then the time saved in o n e area m a y b e

Culture and Technological Change Y 149 lost in another. This m a y h a p p e n w h e n e m p l o y e e s are forced to flip b e t w e e n screens or find themselves h a v i n g to print information from vario u s sources a n d resort to c o m p a r i n g p r i n t e d versions.

Assessing the Potential Impact of Technological Change on Culture All of the factors discussed in the p r e v i o u s section i m p a c t the larger organizational culture in m a n y w a y s . Dealing w i t h technological c h a n g e is an issue that h a s a l w a y s faced businesses. First, the w a y s in w h i c h employees gain k n o w l e d g e about the tasks that they perform directly affects their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their role in the organization. W h e n e v e r n e w tools are introduced, the experience of tasks changes. In m a n u f a c t u r i n g arenas, the g r a d u a l shift to increased levels of a u t o m a t i o n n o t only c h a n g e d the types of tasks required of e m p l o y e e s b u t also c h a n g e d w h a t types of k n o w l e d g e w e r e considered valuable b y the organization a n d t h u s affected h o w decisions w e r e m a d e . W h e r e m e chanical e q u i p m e n t once required expert laborers to r u n a n d m a i n t a i n it, a d v a n c e d c o m p u t e r systems n o w perform m a n y of the s a m e tasks. A s this shift took place, the bodily experience of w o r k i n g o n the s h o p floor changed. Machines n o w required little regular h a n d l i n g . O n o n e level, this transformation allowed for increased consistency a n d controls to b e i m p l e m e n t e d . O n the other h a n d , skilled laborers w h o h a d p e r f o r m e d certain o p e r a t i o n s for y e a r s f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s either u n n e c e s s a r y or forced to interact w i t h familiar systems in unfamiliar w a y s . Oversight of operations h a s also b e c o m e m o r e centralized, taking place in a control r o o m filled w i t h c o m p u t e r screens a n d display m e c h a n i s m s rather t h a n o n the factory floor. Several accounts describe the discomfort e x p e r i e n c e d b y m a n y w o r k e r s , a c c u s t o m e d to identifying trouble b a s e d o n s o u n d s , smells, a n d visceral experience w i t h tangible e q u i p m e n t , b u t n o w expected to trust a series of n u m b e r s , dials, b u t t o n s , a n d w a r n i n g lights. The case s t u d y of c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n in the p u r c h a s i n g d e p a r t m e n t (Groleau & Taylor, 1996) also indicates that learning to trust decontextualized data w h e n o n e h a s b e c o m e accustomed to m a k i n g decisions at a m o r e q u a l i t a t i v e level is u n s e t t l i n g for many. For a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l leader, u n d e r s t a n d i n g the root of this discomfort can assist in the introd u c t i o n of technological change.

150 Τ

LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION

Identifying Technological Impact on Common Work Practices There is n o inherent value in change. A p r o b l e m w i t h the status q u o m a y suggest a fine-tuning of current processes or increases in resources available to carry out those tasks, b u t often the first i m p u l s e is to find a b e t t e r way. The scenarios referred to a b o v e p o i n t to w a y s in w h i c h change can lead to b r e a k d o w n s in current systems or strip current p r o cesses of valuable attributes. Frequently, such system b r e a k d o w n s occur w h e n the variable contributions m a d e b y the individuals in the process are not adequately accounted for. Again, this conceptualization can be traced back to different perceptions of w h a t counts as information. In developing information technology or a u t o m a t i n g mechanical systems, those responsible for research a n d d e v e l o p m e n t often begin b y observing current w o r k practices a n d attempting to d e v e l o p a schema for h o w various tasks are performed. By breaking complex tasks d o w n into c o m p o n e n t parts, job activities can b e quantified, analyzed, a n d transformed into the mathematical e q u a tions that drive m o s t technological systems. Problems arise w h e n the subtleties of decision-making processes at points of h u m a n interface are neglected or underestimated. If a systems analysis only indicates that certain pieces of information m u s t travel in certain w a y s b e t w e e n v a r i o u s d e p a r t m e n t s , then p r o g r a m s can b e written that permit such transfers to take place m o r e r a p idly via electronic m e a n s . W h e n such p r o g r a m m i n g fails to account for the w a y in w h i c h that information is h a n d l e d b y various individuals in those different d e p a r t m e n t s , however, or precludes the h a n d l i n g of information in particular w a y s , the transfer of data m a y fundamentally alter the experience of information for the organizational m e m b e r s responsible for m a k i n g decisions. The w a y organizational m e m b e r s experience their value to the organization a n d h o w they perceive their role in performing essential tasks for the organization directly affects their identification w i t h the company. Because of this, ensuring that technological change does not negatively impact o n e m p l o y e e s ' abilities to adequately perform their tasks is particularly i m p o r t a n t to maintaining strong cultural identification. Just as it is i m p o r t a n t to get i n p u t from organizational m e m b e r s a n d stakeholders at other key decision points, enlisting their h e l p in identifying a p p r o p r i a t e technological changes can b e crucial to success. Often,

Culture and Technological Change Ψ 151 they tices both tem,

h a v e a greater u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the intricacies of day-to-day p r a c w i t h w h i c h they are intimately involved. T h r o u g h their insight into w h a t w o r k s well a n d w h a t poses difficulties u n d e r the current sysa clearer sense can e m e r g e of w h e r e to target c h a n g e efforts.

The Impact of Technological Change on Organizational Structure Just as technological change affects day-to-day operations in existing organizational structures, it also alters those structures or gives rise to n e w ones. In the m a n u f a c t u r i n g e x a m p l e referred to above, the i n d i v i d u als w h o s e k n o w l e d g e w a s m o s t v a l u e d in the organization shifted d r a matically after a u t o m a t i o n occurred. Whereas earlier systems h a d req u i r e d the k n o w l e d g e of skilled labor to m a i n t a i n the s m o o t h operation of e q u i p m e n t , a u t o m a t e d systems required instead a certain degree of comfort w i t h information technology, a degree of m a t h e m a t i c a l skill to interpret data r e a d o u t s , a n d a willingness to trust the n e w w a y information w a s being presented. Often, those best suited to performing well u n d e r earlier s y s t e m s h a v e great difficulty a c c o m m o d a t i n g to n e w mechanisms. This t y p e of transition can b e c o m e difficult for an organization to negotiate for several reasons. First, those n o w best e q u i p p e d to h a n d l e n e w technology often m a y h a v e significantly less experience in the organization. Those w h o m a y rapidly b e c o m e responsible for p e r f o r m i n g tasks vital to the organization's functioning m a y either h a v e relatively little seniority or b e n e w hires, trained explicitly to b e able to operate the a u t o m a t e d systems. H a v i n g little familiarity w i t h actual operations o n the floor gives n e w c o m e r s little context in w h i c h to frame their u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the function of the tasks they will perform. Similarly, w h e n a u t o m a t i o n breaks d o w n , these individuals m a y b e p o o r l y e q u i p p e d to d i a g n o s e a n d repair malfunctions o n the floor. In organizations w h e r e technological change is m o r e informational, structural changes m a y b e felt also. The case s t u d y exemplifies o n e w a y this h a p p e n s w h e n organizational m e m b e r s n o longer h a v e direct access to information in a form that p e r m i t s t h e m to easily perform the m u n d a n e tasks required b y their job. At a m o r e m a c r o level, however, u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t identifies itself b y t h e q u a l i t y of the w o r k p e r f o r m e d . Generally decisions m a d e at

152 Τ LEADING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH TRANSITION higher levels of the organization are less cut-and-dried, require m o r e flexibility, a n d are m o r e intuitive. A s technology is i m p l e m e n t e d that strips d o w n decisions to strict equations a n d eliminates intuitive i n p u t , these tasks t e n d to get p u s h e d d o w n the hierarchy. O n the one h a n d , m a n a g e r s m a y b e pleased to h a v e their time freed to perform other tasks. O n the other h a n d , they m a y find that a lack of direct i n v o l v e m e n t in the decision-making processes at other levels affects the degree to w h i c h they are in t o u c h w i t h day-to-day activities of the organization. A s practices originally performed at certain levels of the organization get m o v e d a r o u n d or p e r f o r m e d differently, an assessment m u s t b e m a d e regarding the qualitative o u t c o m e s of the decisions m a d e u n d e r the n e w systems. There are certainly situations in w h i c h technological i n n o v a t i o n can enhance i n d i v i d u a l s ' capacity to perform their job well. Since this is n o t always the case, however, being able to assess early o n h o w c h a n g e m a y fundamentally i m p a c t y o u r organization's ability to m a k e informed decisions a n d deliver quality p r o d u c t s or services can b e helpful in d e v e l o p i n g s y s t e m s that m o s t comfortably c o m p l e m e n t y o u r organizational culture a n d existing systems.

Exercise

7.1

The following questions can provide a useful starting point for considering how organizations handle information exchange and how intrusion into those systems may enhance or detract from its ability to achieve its goals. To answer these questions, think specifically of an organization that you are familiar with that is experiencing difficulties. Try to focus on a specific section or unit in that organization. • What information does the unit need to perform its job? •

How does that information get shared with other units?

•

What else is gained by the mechanism through which information is transmitted?

•

How do current information systems shape the way members think about and understand their role?

• What relationships are developed and maintained through the transmission of information?

Culture and Technological Change Ψ 153 * What benefits do organizational members derive from developing those relationships? *

Does handling information pertaining to one task affect one's ability to perform another?