c c


m
 
 m

Ã
 

    
 
      

 

One of the greatest frustrations for consultants and others is in getting organisations to
change, and in particular at the top. If you get a chance to work with a senior team who
can see that culture needs to be changed, then here is a model and a method that you
can use to get to the core.
'TATA' means 'management Thinking and Acting that leads to employee Thinking and
Acting. This is a very simple model of organizational culture that is easy to understand
and can be used to help change the culture to something more powerful.
It is often a good idea to discuss what you are going to do with the senior manager as this
person's support may be important if the rest of the team start to dig their heels in during
steps 3 and 4.

¦




The easiest place to start with the top team when discussing culture is what they see and
hear. Just ask them: What do you see and hear in this culture that you'd like to change?
Then stand back as they list all the things that have been frustrating them about their
employees over past year or more. Typical moans include:

À ^eople not sticking to commitments

À uack of loyalty
À Œot understanding strategic needs
À uack of real concern for customers
À £esistance to new ideas
À uack of creativity
...and so on. Write these down on a flipchart. If the list gets long, help them reduce it to
the 'top five' (or even three).

è


c

Êulture is not just about how people act -- it is also about attitudes, values, beliefs,
mental models, emotions and so on. Œext talk about this and how thinking leads to action
and draw the basic cultural model:

With this you can discuss how employees think drives what they do. Again, this is simple
logic that is easy to understand and accept. Depending on how rational or open the team
is, you can also 'and feeling' after 'thinking'.
uist the top five actions under 'employee action' and now ask the management team to list
how they believe employees are thinking in ways that leads to the identified action. This is
a little harder task but most managers will have few problems coming up with
assumptions about what the employees may be thinking. £emind them as necessary that
their employees are human and that employee thinking will make sense, at least to them.
Typical thinking could include:
À What's in it for me
À Do what I'm told
À Œo point rocking the boat
À Do least work for maximum pay
À ]eep your head down
x
 


Œow it starts to get more interesting and stage 3 ideas may require some discussion
before you start listing. The primary principle is that a significant driver of what
employees think is what managers say and do. Of course there are other forces on
employees but what managers say and do has a huge effect -- sometimes more than
managers may think (and if employee thinking is not affected by what managers say and
do then there would be an even bigger problem).
This can be shown as below. ^utting 'Management Action' above 'Employee Thinking',
rather than to the left, is a subtle hint of superiority that may help managers find it easier
to accept the ideas.

Œow you can ask 'What are saying and doing that is leading to what employees
think?' This can be a very difficult moment for managers who do not want to accept
responsibility for what employees think and do and you may need to keep the dialogue
going for a while before you write anything down. You may need to press them on this,
asking such as 'Are those actions
leading employees to think like that?' until you
get to realistic information.
Discussions can include such as whether managers actually follow 'company values' as
published, and what employees think about this. As appropriate, you can change or
extend the 'Employee Thinking' box.
Ask permission, then write down the words and actions they tell you about, above the
'Management Action' box. If a longer list appears, then help them prioritise for the top
three to five actions that have the greatest effect on employee thinking.
If this segment worked, there should be a significant number of 'aha's in recognizing what
managers say and do affects culture and hence how it must change.


 
c

If step 3 was difficult, then step 4 may well be even more difficult again, although it may
also be easier if the penny has dropped and the principle accepted by now.
Just as employee thinking drives employee action, so also does management thinking
drive management action. So the question now is 'What are your thoughts that are
leading to what you say and do?' Draw in the last box as below. There should be no
debate about whether this is valid as the 'Thinking - Action' principle has already been
established.

Again, this may require some dialogue before you start to write things down (when you
do, put them above 'Management Thinking'). The critical message is that how they think
and feel is at the root of a causal chain that leads directly to what employees say and do,
and hence to change the culture of the organisation they must change what and how they
think - which can be a very scary subject and hence need plenty of space and support to
happen.
Discussions can include questions about what they think about employees, what their
values really are, and so on. In this session do not try to get it all out but just enough for
them to realize how what they think is very important.

6



This is a simple but powerful model which you can use in a number of additional ways.






From this session additional sessions can be held to explore what and how the
management team thinks. If the first session has provided the wake-up call and an
understanding of the importance of how they think then these sessions can be used to dig
into personal and interpersonal drivers and dynamics.
 





Taking the simple 'thinking and acting' culture model, management culture and employee
culture may be explored separately and reasons for differences discussed.
3 




Management Action that changes Employee Thinking is pretty much what leadership is. A
powerful discussion about leadership can therefore be had by considering this link.
An additional link may be added between Employee Action and Management Thinking.
How we think is driven by what others say and do and the way managers think is often
strongly affected by how employees act. This link completes a causal circle, which means
there can be spirals of thinking and acting that can both improve and degrade the power
of the organisation.

An interesting part of this discussion may be about how strong the Management Action -
Employee Thinking link is, as compared with the Employee Action - Management Thinking
link. Ideally, both exist but the biggest influence is the manager to employee direction.
Sometimes management thinking is more strongly influenced by a wilful workforce and
effectively the 'tail wags the dog'.
The balance of appropriate strengths between these two links depends on the industry, for
example in intellectual and creative businesses a strong upward link might be a good idea.
The question is to find the best balance for the business the company is in.
c



Another area for possible exploration is in how we think others are thinking. We all use a
great deal of 'theory of mind' in guessing what others are thinking and we often get it very
wrong.
The question may thus be discussed about how managers think employees think and what
employees think that managers think. This is a ripe topic for realizing that how you think
others think is often a long way from how they are really thinking.
A session on theory of mind is best done as a facilitated dialogue between managers and
employees. It is critical for this to succeed that an atmosphere of trust and openness is
created.




The model as presented divides simply along the 'manager-employee' line, which is often
a significant cultural divide. Depending on the organisation, more than one level of
analysis may be completed.
The framework can also be used to examine any connected cultural systems, for example
between marketing and £ D or between the local company and headquarters.


c

The first session (or sessions) is about how things are at the moment and should probably
be kept that way. If you have energized the team then a future session to think about
how things could be different may be held.
Go through the same steps but now think about how they would like things to be. Thus
ask:
1. What do we want employees to say and do?
2. So what must they think and feel that will drive this action?
3. So what must managers say and do to lead employees to these thoughts?
4. And how must managers think and feel in order that they will act in the
appropriate way?

‘
  
  

In 7 May 1946 at Nihonbashi, Tokyo, Masaru Ibuka and Akio Morita gave birth to Tokyo

Tsushin Kogyo K.K. (Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation), otherwise known

as Totsuko. Four years after, the ³Sony tape´, the first magnetic-coated and paper-based

recording tape of Japan, was introduced in the market. Then in 1955, Totsuko made a decision
to change the logo of its products, by labeling them as Sony. In January three years after, the

company shifted its name from Totsuko to Sony Corporation; and by the end of the year, Sony

was registered in Y
  Y

 
. The year 1960 marked the beginnings of Sony

Corporation¶s expansion, in the United States of America, to Hong Kong, to China, and to the

different countries across the globe. Different

YY were introduced in the market.

Until now, Sony is one of the leading electronics brand.

î        



The working definitions of organizational culture in this essay are taken from the lectures

at hand. According to Morgan (1986), it refers to the ³«pattern of development reflected in a

society¶s system of knowledge, ideology, values, laws, and day-to-day ritual´. Organizational

culture, as said by Schein (1985), is related with the ³observed behavioral regularities, norms,

values, philosophies or policies, the ³rules of the game´, and the ³feeling or climate´ obtained by

the individual as a member of the organization (p.6,9). In essence, the culture within a certain

organization is produced by the members themselves that comprise the organization. They are

driven by their organizational goals, which affect the life of the organization. In this essay, the

data on the organizational culture has been obtained through 
 sources from different

print and electronic published materials.

What Mr. Ibuka has envisioned for the company then was ³to create a stable work

environment where engineers who had a deep and profound appreciation for technology could

realize their societal mission and work to their heart¶s content.´ In order to stimulate his
employees personally, he thought of making them ³embrace a firm cooperative spirit and unleash

their technological capacities without any reserve´ (Sony History). Such aspiration of the

founder therefore is what he wanted to see in the organization that he was then about to create.

Incorporation objectives include the following: 1) to establish an ideal factory that

stresses a spirit of freedom and open-mindedness, and where engineers with sincere motivation

can exercise their technological skills to the highest level; 2) to reconstruct Japan and to elevate

the nation¶s culture through dynamic technological and manufacturing activities; 3) to promptly

apply highly advanced technologies which were developed in various sectors during the war to

common households; 4) to rapidly commercialize superior technological findings in universities

and research institutions that are worthy of application in common households; 5) to bring radio

communications and similar devices into common households and to promote the use of home

electric appliances; 6) to actively participate in the reconstruction of war-damaged

communications network by providing needed technology; 7) to produce high-quality radios and

to provide radio services that are appropriate for the coming new era; and 8) to promote the

education of science among the general public (Sony History).

It is interesting to note the underlying ideologies behind these objectives that Sony

Corporation has set. The national culture is evident in the way these objectives are created, aside

from the fact that this work organization was born during the aftermath of the World War II. Mr.

Ibuka has pictured that his company will serve as his contribution for national development, and

that technology is the key to their growth. This is in line with the national advancement that the

Japanese government was aiming at then.

 How reliable is the very first incorporation objective? In an interview with Mr.

Yoshihide Nakamura, the current deputy president of Sony¶s Core Technology and Network

Company, when asked to describe the existing culture within Sony, his testimony says,

³«But Sony¶s culture is a mix of very Japanese thinking and not very Japanese
thinking. In a sense we are very free. We are not forced to do anything as long
as we are doing a good job. You really have freedom in Sony. If you¶re
innovative, you are given new opportunities. Some people who may not really
be suited for anything in other companies can still survive in Sony. They will be
given an opportunity to try to realize their dream. « (Beamish 2000)´

These are Sony Corporation¶s management policies. The first policy states, ³we shall

eliminate any unfair profit-seeking practices, constantly emphasize activities of real substance

and seek expansion not only for the sake of size.´ Second, ³we shall maintain our business

operations small, advance technologically and grow in areas where large enterprises cannot enter

due to their size.´ Third, ³we shall be as selective as possible in our products and will even

welcome technological challenges. We shall focus on highly sophisticated technical products

that have great usefulness in society, regardless of the quantity involved. Moreover, we shall

avoid any formal demarcation between electronics and mechanics, and shall create our unique

products uniting the two fields, with a determination that other companies overtake.´ Fourth,

³we shall fully utilize our firm¶s unique characteristics, which are well known and relied upon

among acquaintances in both business and technical worlds, and we shall develop production and

sales channels and acquire supplies through mutual cooperation.´ Fifth, ³we shall guide and

foster sub-contracting factories in ways that will help them become independent, and we shall

strive to expand and strengthen mutual cooperation with such factories.´ Sixth, ³we shall

carefully select employees, and our firm shall be comprised of minimal number of employees.
We shall avoid to have formal positions for the mere sake of having them, and shall place

emphasis on a person¶s ability, performance and character, so that each individual can fully

exercise his or her abilities and skills.´ Lastly, ³we shall distribute the company¶s surplus

earnings to all employees in an appropriate manner, and we shall assist them in a practical

manner to secure a stable life. In return, all employees shall exert their utmost effort into their

job´ (Sony History).

Many distinct features lie underneath these management policies by Sony Corporation.

First is the use of the word ³we´, which implies the organization¶s commitment to work as a

team. This ©
Y
is distinctly Japanese, or Asian or Eastern, as opposed to the West¶s

individual-based work being the norm. It has also been found out that during the beginnings of

the company, its pioneers were really hardworking that they work even until after the work hours

or until midnight. Among the Japanese managers, working for long hours, i.e. 12-14 hour

workdays adding in ³semiobligatory evenings out with their work team´, is said to be the norm

(Earley 1997, p. 180).

Secondly, minimalism or miniaturism is distinctly Japanese, as evidenced in their

material culture. Thirdly, there is a stress on innovation. Innovation is a significant idea for the

Japanese. According to Goto and Odagiri (1997), technology has been deemed as the driving

force at the back of the Japanese manufacturing firms¶ victory, and the Japanese economy at the

same time. As of the moment, what prompted research pertaining to Japan¶s innovations system

is its function to Japan¶s speedy economic growth and modernization (p.1). In Sony¶s eyes,

the key to success is by possessing the attitude of being innovative. According to Mr.

Nakamura,
 ³«Winners win and losers lose, so it has become quite obvious in many
industries in Japan that anybody who is creative and innovative can really make
money and anyone who has maintained the status quo and is not really creative
is losing ground and even going bankrupt´ (Beamish 2000).

Four buzzwords are expected for the entire companies in the Sony Group to resonate.

Unique, being so guarantees Sony¶s always being innovative. Quality, is what describes its

products. Speed, is to refer to the adaptability of Sony to the market environment. Cost, points

to the significance of competitive pricing once the three are established (Sony History). These

are the essential components of Sony Corporation¶s organizational culture today. It has

responded to the current demands, which are necessary in order to thrive in the global market.

In April 1999, Sony Corporation has reorganized its structure. The reason? According to

Mr. Nakamura, considering the dawn of the digital network era of the 21st century, the company

deemed it necessary to adapt a new and realign its organizational structure. Sony is indeed a

giant now, but as much as possible the company wanted to maintain the spirit of being ³a small

venture company´. In doing so, President Nobuyuki Idei, who became president in April 1995,

created two slogans ² ³Regeneration´ and ³Digital Dream Kids´ (Beamish 2000). Says

President Nobuyuki,

³It is a chance to collaborate with team spirit ± not as individuals, but as a

team«To ensure that Sony remains an excellent company over its next fifty
years, I have set forth µregeneration¶ as a new management theme. This is a
concept that preserves the original founding spirit by renewing ourselves and
aiming for even greater heights« Living in the digital age is very exciting for
people of all ages. Young and old alike are truly mesmerized by digital
technology. These a
 a a
, are our future customers. And at all
levels of Sony, we must ourselves become a a
to continue creating new
products that will meet our future customers¶ expectations (Sony History).´
 Sony deconstructed itself into four divisional companies. These are Home Networking

Company, Personal and Information Technology Network Company, Core Technology and

Network Company, and Sony Computer Entertainment (Beamish 2000). The following figure is

obtained from Sony Corporation¶s Website.

In terms of hiring its employees, according to Mr. Nakamura, Sony wants to have good

individuals of heterogeneity (Beamish 2000). The management policy refers to the hiring as

only to carefully select. In reality, it hires not only or merely individuals who come from the

engineering field, but those who have a good eye for the electronic products. Note that its

current CEO today is even of an American nationality, Howard Stringer. An employee is said to

acquire a ³certain magical feeling´. According to Mr. Nakamura, to work for Sony means ³a

feeling of pride and security´ to the local populace (Beamish 2000).

The procurement or purchasing activities of Sony are said to be grounded on two major

principles. The first one deals with the customers, or global customers to date. They are to meet

the expectation of the customers being, that Sony products and services tender a high level of

value. Likewise, customers expect that Sony is a good corporate citizen by way of its

operations. The second one deals with the relationship with the company¶s suppliers. Since the

raw materials for the production of their products come from various suppliers across the globe,

procurement activities therefore require ³smooth relationships´ that are founded on ³trust and

cooperation´. Sony puts a premium on keeping a good partnership with its suppliers. It is in this

manner that Sony believes it is able to deliver its products as well as services best (Sony

History).
 The organization under study is found to be placing a premium on maintaining a good

relationship with its suppliers. This resounds with the concept of ³keiretsu´. Simply put, it

implies collaboration among firms with other firms of a different industry by way of

³intercorporate stockholding and personnel transfer´ (Lebra 1992, p. 139-140). This leads to a

powerful business bloc. Clearly indeed that Sony Corporation considers the entire key players,

from employees to consumers to suppliers, in their actions and decisions. According to Sony

Executive Keiji Nakazawa, all Japanese companies arrive at decisions quickly, but before

arriving at a certain decision; everything has to be completely taken into consideration in order to

produce first a detailed business plan (Kageyama 2005).