Organisational Cultures - A Language for Change

Ioan Tenner 1 1991, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2013 It is not enough to decide and plan Change with precision and to do things well. In an old First World War joke, an Italian lieutenant shouted while jumping out of the trench to order attack: Avanti! Behind, the troop responded with enthusiasm: Che bella voce! What a beautiful voice! Leaders driving innovation have to communicate it in a way that moves people. You can only move people from where they are, from what they believe and understand. Organisations do have different cultures. Therefore, when it comes to newness - in management, technology, in business operations or in the customer orientation, altering the organisational culture proves to be the very substance of impact. The style and the sequence of messages and of actions must make sense in different words, in different ways, to fit and move different Cultures. * This outline presents models and concepts needed to understand how dissimilar organisational cultures work 2 and what makes sense, what appears as obvious truth to their people. The aim is to give you practical tools to succeed in communicating newness and achieving cultural Change within your own Organisation across layers of management and departmental boundaries, or externally with your Customers. I try to outline here, in a few practical models 3, the essence of many management theory books. I found helpful to do this because most of the academic efforts dont appear to care at all for action, beyond research results and scholarly dispute. In the following lines I will refer to the models of Roger Harrison and Charles Handy, a metaphor modified after Scorzoni and the theories of Carl-Gustav Jung. * Let me claim first that beyond most of the organisational theories and discourses about organisations hide radical alternatives, choices of ways to see the world; two mental pictures,
Ioan Tenner, 38 ch du Pr de la Croix, 1222 Vsenaz, Geneva Switzerland, E-mail: tenner@smile.ch, tel./fax: (+4122) 7720292, mobile [+41] (0) 78 7111 1408 2 Culture means much more than what is presented here. Cf. Britannica 1997: Culture, [is] the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour. Culture, thus defined, consists of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, ceremonies, and other related components. The development of culture depends upon humans' capacity to learn and to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations. Organisational culture, a subset of Human Culture is all of this - what I would call the chromosomes of society and in our case the chromosomes of the Corporation what keeps it being itself in time and across employee turnover. My presentation is drastically simplified to keep what is useful for the purpose at hand.
3 1

One last methodological warning: the models proposed here are metaphoric and should be compared with fishing nets. The truth of the fishing net, a device invented and manufactured by man, is to catch fish and nothing else; if you get fish, the net is true if it comes out repeatedly empty its wrong. In years of practice I had confirmation that the Harrison/Handy, Scorzoni and Jung metaphors do work and so do my own modifications. They help people to make sense and act with impact within and across the complexity of Organisations.

both true but very different and blind to each other. My belief is that the two views are complementary. Most people find difficult to accommodate them. Understanding them allows one to see the root of culture problems in a way that goes beyond academic explanation, to strategic action.

A Structural model (The Bottle Opener) A first way to look at organisations is the Structural approach. We could represent it as a bottle opener model. Whatever you move, everything else is linked and moves with it. This is the mainstream paradigm of Science and of Technology today: There is nothing in the world but systems: objective, complex structures, given. You must analyse them, understand their data and laws of causality, forecast based on regularities and act accordingly. You run change by clear analysis and careful planning. The reality of resources, factors, and events in the environment, determines the tools needed, and the priority tasks to tackle. Information and decisions concerning the work processes follow with logic, to carry out the task and resolve deviation. That calls, naturally, for an adequate organisational structure. Your system requires a specific set of people with skills and attitudes to match the work. All these parts must fit. You get what you measure. This is a view of Culture dominated by matter of fact, by the given and the planned. The Structural view builds vision from reality. It uses a model first defining the present state, then a desired future state and the way in between, to drive from past to future.

Systemic strategy Organisation Structure

Tools and tasks Measurements and Rewards

Information and Decisions People Skills and Attitude

The Leadership model. There is another view of Organisations, quite different from the structural one. Let me call it the pharaonic or leadership model. The root belief is here that some things are given but other things you make 4. It is the approach that makes your dreams come true. In this approach, all starts with a vision. You set bold objectives from it. You convince a whole crowd of people to see life your way. The creative work of Change is to invent and procure the practical means to get what you want and to lead people towards a goal in spite of all blocks, limits and oppositions. A Company founder or a top executive has a dream. I have a dream, he says. If it was good enough for Pharaoh, it will be good enough for me! Yes, Sir! reply the next lower layer of managers. Site plans by next week, Certainly Oh Great Master, a feasibility study, not too expensive, suitable blessings on available budget, we will do the best.

Management Objectives: I have a dream!

Certainly Your Majesty, We will make it true!

Certainly Master, Well arrange:

- Site plans by next week - Feasibility Studies - Blessings on available budget

The next lower level will execute the needed operations: If its an order, then with pleasure, We will arrange, and so on. You create or transform an organisational structure to bring to life the idea. You do all that is needed to adapt reality instead of adapting to the given. This is how Pyramids were built, religions founded, world wars started, inventions made and fortunes built. Isnt this the very story of Civilisation? It is as business-like a Certainly Master, Well arrange: view as the first one. There is - Blessings on - Site plans by next - Feasibility available budget week nothing more practical than a good Study theory (K. Levin). This is also a arrange: favourite winners way of thinking - If its an Well Well arrange: - Re-design, - Careful with the - More please order, with - Here we cut - Training budget funds, through stone for many top managers. As George pleasure please Bernard Shaw wrote: You see things Well arrange: - Some extra and ask why. But I dream of things - Here we - God help calculations build on us sand that never were and ask: Why not? When you deal with such a Culture, it is vital to understand this way of thinking. Otherwise you do not fit in.
- If its an order, with pleasure

Well arrange:
- Here we cut through stone - Careful with the budget

- If its an order, with pleasure

Well arrange:
- Here we cut through stone - Careful with the budget - Some extra calculations

Well arrange:
- Here we build on sand - God help us - Some extra calculations

Well arrange:
- Here we build on sand - God help us - Re-design, please

Well arrange:
- Training - More funds, please - Re-des ign, please

Well arrange:
- Training - More funds, please

Organisation Structure

The Leadership vision works from the future vision towards reality. It first shapes freely, a desired future state and then looks at the present situation selectively, to find and pick that which can be used to make the vision feasible.

You may make them because so you desire or on the contrary because so you believe your duty to be, by virtue of principles or values atemporal.

Structural or Leadership? How do they see their world? And how do I, how do we see the world? Answering such questions helps you to make sense and speak sense when you communicate with a person, a group, a department or an Organisation. Not understanding this difference is the cause of many dialogues of the deaf. * The Lily Pond metaphor: I will now use another evergreen metaphor to describe three levels of Culture. The aim is the same; help you understand why people see different things as obvious so that you may deal with them accordingly, to obtain the change you want. On the water, the lilies. These lilies are things you can observe in an organization; behaviours, events, decisions made public, tools, rules and measurements, communications, words used, the way the offices and working places look, all that defines a style and an environment, the way we do things around here.

The Environment

axioms: The

Deep belief

Obvious assumptions

truth Unquestionable

explain: people can What

Objectives Reasons

Interests Ideals

Knowledge Values

observe: can What you

Events Behaviour Rules Symbols Rituals Decisions Measurements Style Communications

If you just look and listen, you will be richly informed about this layer of Culture. It is also the most changing aspect; when the wind of difficulty and external change blows, the lilies and their pads move. Many managers believe that in order to change the organisation it is necessary and sufficient to rethink the business, to plan with precision what procedures, practices, rules, measurements, etc must change and to allocate the resources needed. Then we would send the right messages to explain to everybody and we will determine everybody to change their behaviour. It is somewhat as Blaise Pascals hope that if you pray every day you will end up believing. However, underwater, in the pond, there is another world, more stable, of the stems: these are things you do not observe directly. People may explain them and you can find out, if you ask or probe. It is the time to also ask who the people are, individually and as a group, from where they come (education, other groups they belong to) and where they go (their individual, group and corporate objectives). This is a rational or rationalised level of definitions, explanations, interests and motivations. You can and need to know the stem of behaviours and the things said in order to foresee, cope and reason with an Organisation. If you want to change peoples mind, you need to know where their mind is. This is the level where Organisational Change will be best supported by overt culture building through consulting, negotiation and education. You can hardly change reason by changing behaviour, it is the reverse. Reason is influenced by being informed, by logic and by persuasion. Ultimately, common sense reason can be transformed by consulting activities helping the organisation to elaborate and agree new shared meaning to the key notions implied in the everyday practice of the culture. We can change this level of culture by rectification of the 4

words. By this I mean examining what old words mean for the people, questioning that meaning and agreeing together new meaning, to solve some impossibilities and limits and to create new ones. There is another level, deeper yet. Down in the mud, unseen, are the roots of the lilies. Nobody talks about them, as fishes would not consider an alternative to existing in water. We learned them so well that they became part of us, they are us and therefore we forgot them. We do not use to observe things that are too close to us, like the spectacles on the nose. We look through them not to them. This is a domain of axioms. So obvious and natural that they appear as unquestionable common sense. They are part of our own intellectual makeup. But such axioms can be surprisingly different among individuals and groups. The deepest beliefs in people, organisations and nations are basic normative assumptions and rules that give meaning and determine how or in what terms the world is seen and interpreted; what is truth, beauty, goodness, justice, usefulness, seriousness, what exists and what doesnt, what is or isnt business, what is value, why one works, what is money. Discussing basic beliefs is felt as a threat 5; people do not want to question the stuff their mind is made of: why truth is truth, why beauty is beauty and goodness - goodness. This is why people who know that God exists cannot communicate with atheists who know there is no god and entrepreneurs can hardly dialogue with bureaucrats. To revisit my previous example, this is the hidden field where the Structural view differs from the Leadership one. This is why Board Members practising different value disciplines like Product leadership versus Operational excellence, versus Customer intimacy, have difficulty to develop shared understanding. Awareness and sensing of deep differences 6 at this level gives us freedom from our own blind spots and power to communicate and manage change. You can only change yourself if you understand your own basic beliefs and find where your blind spots are. You can only change other peoples minds and organisations if you understand and speak the language they think and lead them to test the limits of what they know and conceive as possible. We can intervene at this deep level with awareness events like the one documented by this Structures Cultures outline, or by learning practices to discover, rebuild and reproduce common, shared meaning and values.
Power Web

Adapting and using Handy and Harrisons list of Cultures and Structures:

(Profit Centre)
Role Temple

(Traditional)
Task Net

Peoples interpretation key and their response to the D D communication of Change, to your planning and action, Atomistic Cluster DD D D (Futuristic) are based on the characteristic axioms of their cultural environment. This is usefully visualised by Handys metaphoric classification of Organisational Cultures. Each Culture appears to Handy as a typical structure of communication and power. Harrison and Handy describe four types of organisational culture:

(Consensus)

This level of culture is an object of faith. As it is known faith tends to be tenacious in spite of evidence to the contrary (such evidence is often avoided or regarded with suspicion), or they are a result of voluntary choice of beliefs in absence of evidence. However, most of our faith is simply confidence and expectation based on experience, acceptance of trusted authority or self-evident intuition. 6 What is often called cultural relativism, a detached understanding that comes from travelling and seeing many cultures as consultants do or even more, a comprehension that is developed by experience with trying to change cultures.

The Power (Profit Centre) appears like a centralised web. The Role (Traditional) looks like a stable temple of bureaucracy. Task (Consensus) is represented by a matrix of intersecting decentralised lines of power and task competence. Handys Four Culture Types Atomistic or People (Futuristic) is a cluster, an High Formalisation aggregation of independent personalities. Task Role
(Traditional) (Consensus)
High Centralisation Low Centralisation

D D DD D D

Power (Profit Centre)

Low Formalisation

Atomistic (Futuristic)

Let me shortly interpret the dimensions that differentiate Harrisons types. On the horizontal, we go from high to low centralisation. On the vertical, formalisation is high or low.

In the Power (Profit Centre) culture there is high centralisation of power, located in one centre

Power Culture
High Centralisation Formalisation Power Rings Web

Power Culture
High Centralisation Formalisation Power Rings Web

Person in centre - vital; succession issues Works on precedent Anticipating top wishes Few rules/procedures Control through selection of key individuals Political organisation Balance of influence

Move quickly, react well. Right direction? Risk taking Faith in individuals, not in committees Tolerant of means Competitive atmosphere Size is a problem

but the formalisation is low. Who needs rules when the important decisions are all taken by the boss?

Role Culture
High Centralisation High Formalisation Bureaucracy Greek temple

Role Culture
High Centralisation High Formalisation Bureaucracy Greek temple

Reason, logic, rationality Specialisation of departments Procedures for roles, communication and dispute settling Individuals interchangeable for a given job Positional power; experts power tolerated Fit for stable environment

Security for individual Get expertise without risk Reward the satisfactory Frustration for results oriented people Economies of scale Slow, inflexible

The Role (Traditional) culture is both highly centralised and formalised. In the Greek temple, everything is done by rule and reported hierarchically, through formal channels.

The Task (Consensus) culture, dominant in some large hight-tech organisations of the1980s, is also very fond of formal principles and regulations needed to glue its diversity together, but low on centralisation, since resources and power of diverse engineering groups are distributed by task competence. The way of co-ordinating the task teams is endless negotiation and buy-in, sharing of Vision, Strategy and Scenarios. No way to manage by central authority or by bureaucracy, those things make no sense to them.

Task Culture
High Formalisation Low Centralisation Net

Task Culture
Matrix High Formalisation Low Centralisation Net Matrix

Getting job done; rewards for results Getting together resources; right people at right

level
Expert power - dispersed influence Team concerns and issues Individuals identify with organisation objectives Adaptable; quick reaction High degree of self-control over work

Mutual respect based on capacity Sensitivity to market? Fewer economies of scale; less depth of

expertise
Create initiative Difficult to control When scarce resources; teams compete Individual objective surface

The Person (Futuristic) or Stars culture is low on both centralisation and formalisation. This is typically an R & D laboratory, lawyers or medical doctors venture, an entrepreneurs small company, or some pioneering, skunk-working, IT lab. The driving forces are creative vision, personal competence, charisma and practical achievement.

Person, Atomistic, Star Culture

Low Formalisation Low Formalisation

D D D D D D

Constellation of independents

Charismatic power Each one does own things High expertise/creativity Shared influence Phsychological contract Control or hierarchy impossible Unstable conglomerate

Applying Jungs Theory - What makes sense for each Culture: Let me unearth some deeper meaning and practical applicability from behind the HarrisonHandy classification. We can go further to understand the essence of what makes sense and what is good value in a Culture but may be alien in another. To explain this I found that we can superpose on the four cultures grid Carl Gustav Jungs classical typology of human thinking styles (unfortunately deformed and debased by many pop-psychologists). Jung proposed two dimensions: The first (horizontal) dimension is the way people obtain the information they use to consider it valid; (1) Perception and measurement or (2) Intuition and imagination.

C.-G. Jungs dimensions: How people obtain their food for thinking

Perception

Intuition

The second (vertical) dimension is how individuals (or whole Cultures) use to process the information; (1)Logical, rational thinking or (2) Active practice (thinking by doing).

C.-G. Jungs dimensions: How people process their information.

Logical Thinking

Practice

When we combine the two grids, Harrison's and Jung's, we find valuable insight in what differentiates the "mind" of the four organisational cultures.

C.-G. Jungs dimensions and the four cultures:

Logical Thinking

Perception
D D D D D D

Intuition

Practice
All this may sound academic but is readily applicable. To apply Jungs findings I propose a grid of five communication and leadership styles to fit the four cultures. Each style is the preferred one, credible in a given type of culture. I believe that we must either adapt to what makes sense in an organisation or consciously negotiate a radical change of the culture.

Jungs Theory Logical Thinking

Concepts and Policy

Perception and Measurment Concrete Facts

D D D D D D
Hands On Try it out Active Doing Practice

Intuition and Hypothesis Reflective Scenarios, What if?

Let me propose a grid of five communication and leadership styles to fit the four cultures. Each style is the preferred one in a given type of culture. Not adapting the communication to the culture or not educating and negotiating the management style transition, will make the innovation very difficult.

Five Communication Roles:

Scientist

Advocate

Strategist

Pragmatist

Educator

10

Take the Power Culture. What will make sense here is that you present concrete facts and create a chance to try out solutions, hands on. The communication style fit to this culture is what I call pragmatic. The meaning of the word here is having a bias for action, for application and for result. The convincing arguments are local proofs, credentials, demonstrations, successful pilot projects, and winning cases. Not grand theories, nor enthusiastic scenarios, but show-what and show-how. If it works, it is true! In the Role Culture, facts are also important but correct logic, methodology and fitting the existing concepts and policies, the values and traditions of the firm are vital. Stability is of high value. The corresponding communication style, readily understood in the bureaucratic environment (I do not say that bureaucracy is always bad) is scientific. Being objective and rational is one must in the Role culture. Being reasonable within the bounds of principle and tradition is another. We could synthesise this as show-what and show-why. In the Task Culture, concepts, policy and logic still reign but fact and measurement are often overpowered by the need for unifying vision and proactive planning. The style of communication people are used to listen to in a democratic matrix organisation is rhetoric. Here you will make sense as an achiever, based on your personal credibility and recognised competence, by means of detecting and addressing shared motivations, by attractive choices, concerning values, and visibly actionable, mind-size scenarios. Could we call it show-why and point-towards? In the Personality Culture, the same visionary scenarios work best when combined with hands on demonstration. The typical contribution is compelling, Socratic leadership by education. The individual accepts newness in the form of challenge, original thinking and personal discovery. In such a group you also have to speak to each person and demonstrate value added to everyone.

Five Communication Styles

Logic Bureaucratic

Scientific

Rhetoric

Functional

Push Reality & Data

Strategic
D D D D D D

Pull People & Scenarios

Power

Pragmatic
Practice

Socratic

People

11

* A word of warning: There is of course no such thing as a pure and unmoving corporate culture. It is always a mixture, a local flavour, a trend of transition from one to another. The useful questions to ask are: Which is the dominant culture of this group, department, organisation now, in this circumstance? Which cultures meet here? How do we bridge between different cultures? How to fit or change the given culture with my message and work? Towards which culture do we move? How to negotiate or educate the different style needed? Once a first assumption is formed, we will still have to probe and check that it is correct. We may need to refine the assumption. A good way to end this outline is to ask what next? What to do with this learning? In my own experience, the next step will be to create and to formulate your Communication Strategy for the Change Management project. The strategy will unfold in activities to support Organisational Change. You will also have to spend time to find effective tactics, ever changing to fit surprises, to succeed each step of change. That can not be summarised in this note because tactics are always situational and creative. Designing a change project, a communication strategy, a communication plan, formulating communication and practices to fit or to alter a given culture is the meaning of speaking a language of Change. This requires specific management work in addition to the business change projects. There is too often inconsistency between the intention and the way it is perceived throughout the Organisation - and as the Chinese say, You will not trust the man whose belly doesnt move when he laughs. The strongest message of management is not what it says but what it does. References CLEGG, S. R., Hardy, C., Nord, W. A., Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London, 1996 HANDY, Charles, B., Understanding Organizations, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1986. HANDY, Charles, Gods of Management, London, Souvenir Press, 1986. HARRISON, R., Organization Culture and Quality of Service., A.M.E.D., London, 1987 JUNG, C.-G., Types Psychologiques, Librairie de lUniversit Georg et Cie S. A., Genve 1983 MORGAN, G., Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1986. SCORZONI, J., Understanding Digital Equipment Corporations Organizational Culture, Organization and Employee Planning and Development. 6/1982.15

12