The structural elements of organizational culture – as discussed in Chapter 1 – are, of course, also important strategic phenomena when we want to change the organization. This involves the following aspects:
Ĺ the history of the culture Ĺ the type of culture
Ĺ the peculiarities of the culture History
A historical sketch of the organization and its culture can provide important information about issues such as:
Ĺ the developmental stage of the organization Ĺ the consequences of important and traumatic events Ĺ the organization’s founders and other important people Ĺ the mythology of the organization
The developmental stage of an organization has important implications for both its structure and its functions. A new organization usually does not have much structure, while its main functions tend to be less clearly divided over different employees. As a result, the organization can operate quite flexibly, though there is the risk of wheels being invented time after time. Such a state of affairs does not only cost a great deal of time and money, but can also be exhausting for the employees involved. This can limit the efficiency and effectiveness of a new organization when it comes to serving the end customer in the cheapest, quickest and best way. In a fully mature organization, on the other hand, the danger exists that the structure and the division of functions become so rigid that changes in the environment cannot be adapted to. Consequentially, a change agent should always take the developmental stage of the organization into consideration.
As a rule of thumb, providing more structure and a clearer division of roles can be an appropriate intervention for organizations that have outlived their first pioneering stage.
Likewise, readjusting the structure and role division in such a way that the organization is better attuned to its environment is a standard intervention for organizations at a later stage of their development.
A study into the history of an organization can reveal different kinds ofimportant and traumatic events. Examples are radical reorganizations and mergers, massive layoffs and all kinds of ethical transgressions. Such traumatic events are dealt with in Chapter 4 as sources of ineffectiveness resulting in a lack of safety, which interferes with effective functioning.
By studying these events, change agents get some insight into what is possibly still sensitive in the organization, and what may limit the range of possible interventions they want to use.
When these events turn out to be very limiting, it may be wise to address the issues, bring them out in the open and discuss them (Ryan & Oestreich, 1988). Though addressing the
‘skeletons in the closet’ may be scary to the change agent – and to the other stakeholders! – it may be the only way to overcome its interference with organizational functioning. By properly acknowledging – preferably in a workshop that really addresses the matter – what has happened, finding out what went wrong, what mistakes were made and how these mistakes can be prevented in the future, those involved can make their peace with the event.
Examining important and traumatic events can also teach the change agent how the organization typically responds to such events. After all, a radical change of culture can be traumatic to some people. In any case, an intended culture change might evoke memories and feelings attached to such events. Essentially we are talking here about personal transitions, processes of change that require sufficient time, information and attention to deal with (see Chapter 6). These memories and feelings can then almost unconsciously color the responses to the current change. If relevant, the change agent should address this issue.
Apart from bringing the event out into the open in a dialogue-like session (see Chapter 5), the change agent can explain the differences and similarities between the present change and the previous traumatic event. Moreover, if the employees reacted well to the previous traumatic events, the change agent can also point that out, to evoke a similar response to the intended cultural change.
A historical study of the organization should also involve itsfounders and other important people. They are probably still influential, as they laid out the guidelines for the conduct of the members of the organization, at a behavioral as well as an ethical level. Apart from explicitly stating these guidelines, they have served as a model to their employees. The effects of these guidelines on employees are similar to the effects that parents have on the conduct of their children, namely unconscious imitation of the attitudes – mentally as well as behaviorally – in different situations (see Chapter 3). As a result, both children and employees follow certain scripts that determine their behavior (Berne, 1966, 1972; see also Chapter 6). Though these scripts involve a rather strict determination of their behavior, this usually happens in such a self-evident way that the employees are completely unaware of this influence. The nature of the scripts can vary greatly, though, as can their effects. So some scripts are very productive, while others may lead employees into trouble. If the founders or other important people have laid down guidelines or scripts that bring the present employees into trouble, the change agent can address these guidelines or scripts. An example of such a guideline may be the assignment to do anything that furthers the immediate interests of the organization, without paying any attention to the ethical implications and undesired side effects of what people are doing. These scripts are what we, as change agents, are after when we study the influence of the founders or other important people. So it makes sense to ask what these founders and other important people did and how they did that.
Moreover, knowledge of the ways of the founders and other important people can save change agents from approaches that go needlessly against how things are done in the organization. On the other hand, such knowledge enables us to come up with an approach
that is much more in line with what these people did before. As a result, we can even use the founders and other important people as examples or even protagonists of the kind of intervention that we are introducing.
A study of the organization’s history can also examine its mythology, or its ‘further’
mythology, as the founders and important people are usually also part of the mythology.
This is the lore or stories about critical events, victories, happy moments, close calls and disasters in the organization, featuring the founders and other important people as the heroes, and their adversaries as the villains. The mythology provides extensive principles for good and bad behavior. Here too, studying these stories enables the change agent to avoid going against the ethics involved in them, as well as to tailor the proposed approach to these ethics. In addition, the principles involved in the mythology can also reveal practices of questionable morals, which still negatively affect the actual conduct of the members of the organization. When such an influence interferes with the appropriate functioning of the organization, the change agent must address it, preferably in a special dialogue-like workshop.
Though the past cannot be changed, history can, for example by digging up new material and changing emphases. History can also give rise to ideas about changes to be made, as well as to differences of opinion about that. However, the emphasis on solutions and goals here is less prominent, and the same applies to differences of opinion.
Typing Cultures
There are all kinds of ways to type cultures into several categories. Though some of them reflect more the theoretical stances of the people studying the cultures than the character- istics of the cultures themselves, several typologies prove to be quite useful in practice.
Charles Handy, for instance, describes an appealing typology in Gods of Management (1987). Handy distinguishes four types: bureaucracies, social clubs, networks and gather- ings of soloists. Though, of course, these are four ideal types while most organizations are of a mixed nature, they give change agents some indications of what they can and even should do, as well as what they had better not do. They also give change agents some leads about the kinds of organization where they can be more and less productive and successful.
Bureaucracies– represented by the Greek god Apollo, the god of the sun, the official arts and the sun’s clarity – are organizations where clear rules are the main instrument of control. Rules prescribe what everyone does, as well as who relates to whom and how things should be done. In bureaucracies, everything has been described as clearly as pos- sible: the hierarchy, individual responsibilities, as well as rewards and sanctions for all kinds of conduct. Underlying values are clarity, objectivity, rationality and justice. Fre- quently occurring problems in bureaucracies are a lack of flexibility, a lack of feeling and emotion and a neglect of – or sometimes even contempt for – productivity (see Chapter 4, where too much orderliness is discussed). When we want to change something in a bu- reaucracy, this change – at least if we want to implement it successfully – must not go against the underlying values, while its implementation must be anchored and secured by the right rules. Attempts to install alternative values such as flexibility and profitability in such a culture usually fail. In fact, it has proved to be difficult to ‘privatize’ governmental institutions such as railroads, national airlines and all kinds of research institutes, which were once part of the government. This is not to say that it is completely impossible to
change a bureaucracy into a more flexible and goal-directed organization. However, such a change does require a more radical approach, which will take much time, attention and communication.
In cultures termedclubs– represented by the higher god Zeus – personal relationships are all important. This concerns who says what, who we know and how we stand with X, Y and Z. Things happen here only when we assemble sufficient clout. In a club, personal influence, power and loyalty are the important concepts, rules don’t mean much, and lack of coordination and goal directedness, as well as treason, are the pitfalls. When we, as change agents, have to bring about some change in a club culture, we should pay a lot of attention to the power positions of the different players and the nature of their affiliations and other relationships. Finding out what the different players think and want is crucial, and we have to lobby and strike a lot of deals to create a solid platform on which to base the change. Proposing goals and solutions that go against the opinions and interests of the top players is often useless, if not downright suicidal. Going along with the power is all important here. In practice, this means that the change agent has to present solutions in a way that is acceptable and agreeable to the top cats.
Networks – represented by the goddess Pallas Athena, standing for schooling and science – are primarily pragmatic, profession driven and goal oriented in nature. They are concerned with working in projects in changing teams, the quality of solutions, and ac- complishing objectives in the best possible professional way. Important values are quality, creativity and professionalism. Pitfalls are high costs, problems with communication and power, difficulties with time limits, neglecting routine activities such as administration and the financial side of things, and sometimes forms of groupthink and placing too much trust in standard methods. To successfully implement cultural change in such an organization, the change agent must gain respect for their own professionalism, pragmatism and creativ- ity. Also they should make clear what the objective gain is of the new approach, instead of trying to secure their interventions by merely installing rules or lobbying.
Ingatherings of soloists– represented by the god Dionysus, the god of wine and intoxica- tion – performance is based on the qualities and networks of the individual ‘partners’ of the organization: free people, who act as professional experts, each of whom is doing their own thing. Core values are originality, artistry and individualism. Pitfalls are egocentricity,l’art pour l’art, vanity and solutions that are too idiosyncratic. Tactically influencing the ‘part- ners’ entails personally involving these people in the proposed goals and solutions, which can boil down to a kind of dialogue that demands inquiry and advocacy (see Chapter 5).
Another possibility consists of showing the disadvantages of the pitfalls of this culture; that is, the lack of effectiveness, losing contact with clients and the lack of synergy. Examples of gatherings of soloists are to be found in consultancy firms, and in hospital departments organized around medical specialties.
Broadly speaking, when one of the four types gets into trouble, it often can be helped – at least on paper – by installing some of the characteristics of the other types. So a bureaucracy canbe helped by bringing about more flexibility and goal directedness, a club by installing some structure, a network by more emphasis on speed and profitability, and a gathering of soloists by more cooperation and synergy. However, all of these ‘solutions’ go against the grain of these cultures and will evoke a great deal of resistance, which may turn out to be very effective, as it will not be an individual matter but a well-concerted group activity (see Chapter 1).
An example comes from the changes in Dutch hospital departments, where specialists used to work as basically free entrepreneurs in a partnership context, which can be called
a gathering of soloists. However, now they are paid as normal employees by the hospital, which is essentially a bureaucracy. Consequently, their work is now determined by all kinds of rules, and it has lost most of its autonomy when it comes to planning, cooperation and communication. On many occasions, this loss has given rise to all kinds of friction and conflicts, as well as to totally ineffective work situations and – unfortunately– some needless deaths as well.
All in all, when it comes to changing these types of culture, just giving their members some rules, urging them to be more flexible, communicative or dependable, will not do the trick. Such a change demands a much more radical approach, which will only work if the need for change is deeply felt, and such a deeply felt need will only arise when the present working situation has become fully ineffective and counterproductive. This more radical approach will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Recognizing Cultural Peculiarities
Within each culture, there are of course a great number of formsthat are typical of the specific culture. These are out in the open for anybody who wants to perceive them. These are the typical ways of doing, saying, thinking and feeling things, as well as the – often implicit – dress code that the members follow. All of these forms can be used to ‘wrap up’
propositions to change the culture. In other words, the change agent must not only be able to speak the language of the organization and use its forms, he must also use this knowledge to be maximally effective.
By determining the forms of what the members of the organization do, think, feel and say, the culture also determines what they don’t do, think, feel and say. As a result, they ‘cannot’ apply certain solutions, approaches and policies. For example, when living healthily or unhealthily is regarded as a private matter, organizations do not get involved in this matter, which means that they cannot influence the health of their employees. However, the costs of unhealthy living by these employees may be very high to these organizations.
Hunting for suchimpossibilitiesshould be a standard pursuit for change agents who want to bring about a cultural change. This is often simply a matter of asking ‘why’ and ‘why not’
and probing a little more, when we, as a change agent, do not understand why employees aren’t doing what appears to us to be only logical and obvious thing to do.
Something similar occurs when certain complaints, solutions, approaches and policies are articulated to close colleagues, but not to those who can make a difference on this issue.
For example, employees may complain among themselves that their manager is doing something stupid, while they do not share this with the manager in question. This is often the case if a small gathering of employees at the coffee machine suddenly disperses when the manager passes by. Such ‘unspeakables’ (Ryan & Oestreich, 1988) are not only interesting in themselves, but especially also for the reasons they are used. What is so risky about being open with someone who can make a change? Often big improvements can be made here, as such unspeakables are most of the time clearly dysfunctional to organizational effectiveness.
Both cases – the inability to apply a certain approach, as well as withholding a comment from those who can make a difference – can be difficult to spot for an outsider. After all, spotting something that is not present is always difficult. However, once the change agent has noticed such an occurrence – or non-occurrence – he may be tempted to comment on its incongruity, which then would trigger undesirable forms of resistance. This does not mean that the change agent should not ask for clarification, on the contrary, but the change agent
should certainly refrain from making derogatory remarks about such occurrences. Instead, they could say something neutral like: ‘I noticed that. . .Can you comment on that?’ The way to go here is to surface the underlying ideas, which later can be discussed in a dialogue session (see Chapter 5).
Because a culture can be regarded as a set of fixed approaches to standard problems, it comes as no surprise that cultures have their own unproductive standard explanations and ways to tackle problems, as well as their own blind spots.
Oftenstandard explanationscan be recognized by their imploring rhetoric. In the verbal realm, this is characterized by the frequent use of terms such as ‘normal’, ‘really’, ‘truly’,
‘actually’, ‘simply’, ‘just’, ‘only’, ‘always’, ‘all’, ‘never’ and ‘nothing’ (see Chapter 8).
Non-verbal clues involve a display of self-evidence by facial cues (corners of the mouth, eyebrows), hand gestures, sighing, stressing certain words, being ‘declarative’ by lowering one’s voice at the end of a sentence, rhetorical questions and so on. It is as if the effects of a law of nature are explained, which actually are too simple to need explanation. This also implies that in such explanations the causes are often rather general in nature: ‘That is only a matter of simple economics’, ‘It is all a matter of bad morals’, ‘That is just the culture here’. Some of the explanations also make use of stereotypes and prejudices: ‘The locals here are just not that smart’, ‘It is simply their age’, ‘What else can you expect of a woman?’ A collection of good examples can be found in van Krieken (2006). Change agents must be alert to standard explanations, but must keep in mind that the ways of formulating described here are of course not reserved for standard explanations. Moreover, standard explanations are sometimes right.
The most characteristic feature ofstandard solutions, either productive or unproductive, is that they are just that, standard. They may be valid or not, but it is still important that a change agent can recognize them as standard. After all, many people are tempted to use a standard solution when they don’t know exactly what to do, or when they want to win time.
Examples are:
Ĺ ‘I’ll contact X.’
Ĺ ‘Just take some days off.’
Ĺ ‘Don’t pay attention to it.’
Ĺ ‘Let’s do a study first.’
Ĺ ‘This study is no good, we need a better one.’
As it is, some highly respected research institutes live on the last two solutions.
Blind spots are similar to the forms of individual denial that I describe elsewhere (Schabracq, 1991) as ‘holes in our everyday reality’; that is, places or issues that are not attended to by the person in question, but that can be and are attended to by others.
In short: blind spots. These holes in our everyday reality are not necessarily subconscious.
Blind spots also can be a matter of strategically installed ‘borders’, which are substantiated by remarks such as:
Ĺ ‘That is not my business.’
Ĺ ‘For that you have to be in our HR department.’
Ĺ ‘They certainly would not inform me about this.’
As many of these blind spots obviously are not particularly functional for the common good of the organization, change agents must be alert to their (non)occurrence. Supposing that an organization really wants to prevent trouble, the question arises why people sometimes