From a political perspective, organizations can be seen as loosely structured coalitions of individuals and groups having different preferences and interests.34 For example, shop-floor workers may want secure, high-paying jobs, and top executives may be interested in diversifying the organization into new businesses. The marketing depart- ment might be interested in developing new products and markets, and the production department may want to manufacture standard products in the most efficient ways.
1.
2.
Creating a Vision at Premier
Premier (http://www.premierinc.com) is a leading health care alliance collectively owned by more than 200 independent hospitals and health care systems in the United States. Together, the owners operate or are affiliated with nearly 1,500 hospitals and other health care sites. Premier resulted from the 1995 merger of Chicago-based Premier Health Alliance, San Diego-based American Healthcare Systems, and The SunHealth Alliance of Charlotte, North Carolina. Premier offers a comprehensive array of services and products through its compan- ies and business units, including group purchasing, consulting services, technology management ser- vices, insurance services, benchmarking and market intelligence services, and legislative advocacy.
Two and a half years after the organization’s forma- tion, a comprehensive organizational assessment suggested that Premier had not been successful in establishing a common organizational culture. Many of its services and employees continued to operate in a fractured or isolated fashion relating largely to their prior organization and its geographic location.
As a result, Premier’s strategy and business model were poorly understood, and more importantly, not well implemented. The assessment pointed to a growing lack of trust in the organization. Premier executives conceded that the organization was culturally adrift and without a well-understood or widely accepted sense of direction.
Another key finding of the assessment con- cerned the organization’s vision. Shortly after the merger, a new set of values, mission, and vision statements had been developed. The statements themselves were clear and compelling; however, they had been developed by a relatively small group of executives. At best, most employees did not feel much ownership of the values; at worst, they saw the failure of top management to behave consistently with the values as evidence that they were not trusted, supported, or important.
In the fall of 1997, Premier hired Richard Norling as COO. Norling had been a chief executive at one of the health care systems that owned Premier, and his arrival signaled the potential for change and new possibilities. At his former organization, Norling had initiated and sustained a comprehen- sive OD effort, based on identifying core organi- zational values and the behaviors that supported them. The experience of that health care system had
demonstrated that core values shaped and accepted by an organization’s employees could build a deep sense of community in the organization, and lead to greater levels of trust and commitment that could be harnessed to enhance organization performance and effectiveness. Given Premier’s emerging prob- lem, a similar approach made sense.
In the spring of 1998, Premier executives deter- mined to address these issues by building on the values and mission statements that had been developed earlier. Their intent was to involve a large number of employees in validating Premier’s values, specifying the behaviors that supported them, and identifying ways in which the values could be integrated into the routines and pro- cesses of the organization—all of which would (they hoped) infect the organization with a renewed sense of identity and enthusiasm.
The first step in Premier’s change process was plan- ning and conducting a three-day 200-employee values conference. The conference was designed by a team of employees representing a diagonal slice of the organization and assisted by an OD prac- titioner. At the conference, employees examined Premier’s business model and their organizational culture; developed and recommended a set of core organizational values for the organization; crafted an envisioned future; and identified and proposed strategies for employee involvement, integration, and organization transformation companywide.
Following the conference, the team of Premier employees who had planned the meeting was asked to become a permanent committee, charged with refining and implementing plans and recommenda- tions that the conference participants had generated.
Ultimately, input was obtained from over 60% of the workforce and 16 actions were recommended and approved by senior management. Some of those actions included:
• Incorporating the values into Premier’s per- formance management/performance appraisal system
• Incorporating the values into the recruitment and selection process by developing sample interview questions for use by hiring managers aimed at helping them learn whether prospec- tive employees would be a good match to Premier’s organizational culture
application 10.2
• Instituting an annual meeting of approximately 200 employees from all parts of Premier modeled after the 1998 values conference. The agenda should be focused on business issues, strategy, and organizational culture and values. Rotate
those invited so that every Premier employee has an opportunity to attend every three to five years.
The outcome of the vision and values effort follows:
Core Values
6 Integrity of the individual and the enterprise 6 A passion for performance and a bias for
action, creating real value for all stakehold- ers, and leading the pace
6 Innovation: seeking breakthrough opportu- nities, taking risks, and initiating meaningful change
6 Focus on people: showing concern and respect for all with whom we work, building collab- orative relationships with the community, our customers, co-workers, and business associates
Core Purpose
To improve the health of communities Core Roles of the Enterprise
6 Improve quality, reduce costs 6 Improve financial health 6 Create value for owners 6 Improve organizational health 6 Facilitate knowledge transfer 6 Grow the enterprise
FOUNDATION STATEMENTS CORE IDEOLOGY
ENVISIONED FUTURE
10–30 Year Goal
Premier’s owners will be the leading health care systems in their markets, and, with them, Premier will be the major influence in reshaping health care
Vivid Description
By the year 2020,we will have changed the world’s view of U.S. health care to “the best and most cost- effective” at sustaining the good health of popula- tions. In the United States, the health care industry will be considered the best managed and most innovative of all the economic sectors.
Across the nation, our owners, physicians, and other allies will lead the local transformations that are the building blocks of a reshaped health care system.
These transformations will begin to make public health and health services indistinguishable, engaging citizens and civic resources in endeavors that attack the causes of illness and injury. Through efforts that go far beyond providing treatment, people will have a sense of responsibility for their own personal health and the health of their communities.
Together in Premier, we will invent new and supe- rior models of delivering health services, and we will leverage the size, linkages, and resources of Premier to deliver those services to more people,
at a lower cost and higher quality, than any oth- ers. Our owners will operate at costs in the lowest quarter among all similar organizations at qual- ity levels in the highest quarter. We will research and use the most effective and seamless clinical approaches to achieve superior health outcomes and increased values. Our competitive edge will be the unmatched ability to transfer and act on our collective experience and innovation.
Our owners will earn recognition as the most val- ued community resource for health. As a result of their efforts,“Premier” will be viewed as the hall- mark of quality and value that all others seek to emulate. When people see our emblem, they will associate it with health care improvement and advances in health status.
Demonstrating a better way and supported by our constituencies, we will build consensus for national policy directions that stimulate and reward health and healthy communities.
We will indeed be premier.
174 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
These different groups or coalitions compete with one another for scarce resources and influence. They act to preserve or enhance their self-interests while managing to arrive at a sufficient balance of power to sustain commitment to the organization and achieve overall effectiveness.
Given this political view, attempts to change the organization often threaten the balance of power among groups, thus resulting in political conflicts and struggles.35 Individuals and groups will be concerned with how the changes affect their own power and influence, and they will act accordingly. Some groups will become less powerful;
others will gain influence. Those whose power is threatened by the change will act defensively and seek to preserve the status quo. For example, they may try to present compelling evidence that change is unnecessary or that only minor modifications are needed. On the other hand, those participants who will gain power from the changes will push heavily for them, perhaps bringing in seemingly impartial consultants to legitimize the need for change. Consequently, significant organizational changes are frequently accompanied by conflicting interests, distorted information, and political turmoil.
Methods for managing the political dynamics of organizational change are relatively recent additions to OD. Traditionally, OD has neglected political issues mainly because its humanistic roots promoted collaboration and power sharing among individuals and groups.36 Today, change agents are paying increased attention to power and politi- cal activity, particularly as they engage in strategic change involving most parts and features of organizations. Some practitioners are concerned, however, about whether power and OD are compatible.
A growing number of advocates suggest that OD practitioners can use power in positive ways.37 They can build their own power base to gain access to other power holders within the organization. Without such access, those who influence or make decisions may not have the advantage of an OD perspective. OD practitioners can use power strategies that are open and aboveboard to get those in power to consider OD applications. They can facilitate processes for examining the uses of power in organiza- tions and help power holders devise more creative and positive strategies than political bargaining, deceit, and the like. They can help power holders confront the need for change and can help ensure that the interests and concerns of those with less power are considered. Although OD professionals can use power constructively in organiza- tions, they probably will continue to be ambivalent and tense about whether such uses promote OD values and ethics or whether they represent the destructive, negative side of power. That tension seems healthy, and we hope that it will guide the wise use of power in OD.
As implied in Figure 10.2, managing the political dynamics of change includes the following activities: assessing the change agent’s power, identifying key stakeholders, and influencing stakeholders.
Assessing Change Agent Power
The first task is to evaluate the change agent’s own sources of power. This agent may be the leader of the organization or department undergoing change, or he or she may be the OD consultant if professional help is being used. By assessing their own power base, change agents can determine how to use it to influence others to support changes.
They also can identify areas in which they need to enhance their sources of power.
Greiner and Schein, in the first OD book written entirely from a power perspective, identified three key sources of personal power in organizations (in addition to one’s for- mal position): knowledge, personality, and others’ support.38 Knowledge bases of power include having expertise that is valued by others and controlling important information.
OD professionals typically gain power through their expertise in organizational change.
Personality sources of power can derive from change agents’ charisma, reputation, and professional credibility. Charismatic leaders can inspire devotion and enthusiasm for change from subordinates. OD consultants with strong reputations and professional credibility can wield considerable power during organ izational change. Others’ support can contribute to individual power by providing access to information and resource networks. Others also may use their power on behalf of the change agent. For example, leaders in organizational units undergoing change can call on their informal networks for resources and support, and encourage subordinates to exercise power in support of the change.
Identifying Key Stakeholders
Having assessed their own power bases, change agents should identify powerful individ- uals and groups with an interest in the changes, such as staff groups, unions, departmen- tal managers, and top-level executives. These key stakeholders can thwart or support change, and it is important to gain broad-based support to minimize the risk that a single interest group will block the changes. As organizations have become more global, net- worked, and customer focused, and change has become more strategic, it is also impor- tant to identity key external stakeholders. Customers, regulatory agencies, suppliers, and the local community, for example, can exert considerable influence over change.
Identifying key stakeholders can start with the simple question, “Who stands to gain or to lose from the changes?” Once stakeholders are identified, creating a map of their influence may be useful.39 The map could show relationships among the stakeholders in terms of who influences whom and what the stakes are for each party. This would provide change agents with information about which people and groups need to be influenced to accept and support the changes.
Influencing Stakeholders
This activity involves gaining the support of key stakeholders to motivate a critical mass for change. There are at least three major strategies for using power to influence others in OD: playing it straight, using social networks, and going around the formal system.40 Figure 10.2 links these strategies to the individual sources of power discussed above.
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
176 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
The strategy of playing it straight is very consistent with an OD perspective, and thus it is the most widely used power strategy in OD. It involves determining the needs of particular stakeholders and presenting information about how the changes can benefit them. This relatively straightforward approach is based on the premise that information and knowledge can persuade people about the need and direction for change. The success of this strategy relies heavily on the change agent’s knowledge base. He or she must have the expertise and information to persuade stakeholders that the changes are a logical way to meet their needs. For example, a change agent might present diagnostic data, such as company reports on productivity and absenteeism or surveys of members’ perceptions of problems, to generate a felt need for change among specific stakeholders. Other persuasive evidence might include educational material and expert testimony, such as case studies and research reports, demonstrating how organizational changes can address pertinent issues.
The second power strategy, using social networks, is more foreign to OD and involves forming alliances and coalitions with other powerful individuals and groups, dealing directly with key decision makers, and using formal and informal contacts to gain information. In this strategy, change agents attempt to use their social relationships to gain support for changes. As shown in Figure 10.2, they use the individual power base of others’ support to gain the resources, commitment, and political momentum needed to implement change. This social networking might include, for example, meeting with other powerful groups and forming alliances to support specific changes.
This would likely involve ensuring that the interests of the different parties—labor and management, for example—are considered in the change process. Many union and management quality-of-work-life efforts involve forming such alliances. This strategy also might include using informal contacts to discover key roadblocks to change and to gain access to major decision makers who need to sanction the changes.
The power strategy of going around the formal system is probably least used in OD and involves purposely circumventing organizational structures and procedures to get the changes made. Existing organizational arrangements can be roadblocks to change, and working around the barriers may be more expedient and effective than taking the time and energy to remove them. As shown in Figure 10.2, this strategy relies on a strong personality base of power. The change agent’s charisma, reputation, or profes- sional credibility lend legitimacy to going around the system and can reduce the likeli- hood of negative reprisals. For example, managers with reputations as winners often can bend the rules to implement organizational changes. Their judgment is trusted by those whose support they need to enact the changes. This power strategy is relatively easy to abuse, however, and OD practitioners should consider carefully the ethical issues and possible unintended consequences of circumventing formal policies and practices.
Application 10.3 shows how Minnesota’s sexual violence prevention unit recruited external and internal stakeholders into the strategic planning process. They used the social networks of people with clear interests in the subject to support the planning and implementation of change.