Cultural Coalition

By Mark Bodnarczuk

While most people think of organizational culture in broad, sociological terms, the cultural model developed by the Breckenridge Institute® indicates that patterns of interaction between small-groups of 2s, 3s, and 4s are some of the fundamental building blocks of organizational culture. Most managers know that effectively leading a work-group takes an enormous amount of time and energy because they have to maintain a balance between conflicting or competing interests in a complex system of coalitions of small-groups of 2s, 3s, and 4s who see themselves, others, and the world very differently. But what many managers don’t know is that the tapestry of these patterns of interaction that gets woven over time becomes the fabric of organizational culture in their work-group. In this article we argue that managers have two choices. They can either allow the culture in their work-groups to emerge naturally through autopilot patterns of interactions which sentence them to struggle against overly complex systems and human interactions, or they can consciously create, reinforce, and maintain an effective work-group culture that will help them achieve their goals and key performance indicators.

Patterns of Interaction

What exactly are patterns of interaction? Patterns of interaction are habitual behaviors, emotional responses, actions, and interactions that occur between people in the workplace. They often occur on autopilot and are based on the personalities of the managers and staff members involved and the tacit assumptions and unquestioned beliefs of organizational culture, e.g. “how it’s done around here.” While patterns of interaction can assume myriad forms, Paul Watzlawick has identified two key examples that have special application to the day-to-day realities of organizational life: a) symmetric versus complementary and b) content versus relationship (see Paul Watzlawick, Pragmatics of Human Communication, W.W. Norton & Company, 1967, pp. 51-54 and pp. 67-71). Each is described in more detail below.

Symmetric versus Complementary: Watzlawick argues that every relationship must be consciously or unconsciously defined (negotiated) by the participants as being either symmetric or complementary. In symmetric interactions, people tend to mirror each other’s behavior and emotional responses. Symmetric interactions are based on an assumption of equality that has been tacitly agreed to by the participants that tries to minimize the differences between the participants. In complementary interactions, one person’s behavior and emotional responses complements (is different than) the other’s behaviors and emotional responses. Complementary interactions are based on an assumption of difference that has been tacitly agreed to by the participants that tries to maximize the differences between the participants. Differences can include being assertive-submissive, superior-inferior, primary-secondary, or as Watzlawick refers to them, being one-up or one-down.

Content versus Relationship: Watzlawick also makes the distinction between the content element of communication which conveys information and is largely cognitive, and the relationship element of communication which is related to the emotions involved. He likens the content element to digital (verbal) communication, and the relationship element to analogue (non-verbal) communication, e.g. facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Given the fact that 55% of communication is visual (body language), 38% is tone of voice, and only 7% is word choice, trying to resolve destructive conflict that exists at the relationship-emotional level (non-verbal) by interacting at the content-cognitive level (verbal) tends to increase the amount of destructive conflict and the level of cognitive dissonance in the interaction.

Managers and staff members involved in effective, highly functional relationships with constructive patterns of interaction can move seamlessly from one role or way of communicating to the other depending on the demands of the situation and the competencies, knowledge-base, personality, and organizational position of those involved. Those who are trapped in ineffective, dysfunctional relationships with destructive patterns of interaction, are often fixated and calcified in one of the roles or ways of communicating and their actions and interactions are on autopilot, e.g. they happen regardless of who is involved or demands of the situation. In other words, the patterns of interaction that develop “have them” rather than the people involved being able to use whatever role or communication style would be most effective to address the issues at hand. So while Watzlawick’s two examples describe mechanisms that are fundamental to all human communication, it is important to note that patterns of interaction can (and do) develop around any topic or activity: Who talks most in meetings, how decisions are made, whether decisions actually get implemented, the chemistry of people in work-group meetings, how a group members see and respond to their manager (symmetric versus complementary), or how top management communicates important business issues to their staff (content versus relationship). There are as many patterns of interactions as there are groups of people who interact. Continue Reading

By Susan Koval

“The most powerful coalitions emerge when groups with diverse interests are focused on a narrow agenda.” Michael Catania, Conservation Resources, Inc.

I recently attended a leadership course at Rutgers University, focused on developing leaders for the equine industry. Michael Catania presented on the topic of coalition building, which is an essential skill for top leaders. A coalition can be defined as an alliance of various entities that form a pact to work together to achieve a purpose.

Michael pointed out that the more homogeneous the group, the easier it is to address issues and come to agreements, but the harder it is for the coalition to make the impact it is seeking.

For example, a more homogenous group would be one consisting only of organizations specifically related to equines, such as breed associations, regional horse organizations, and horse-specific professional/recreational/sporting organizations. A more diverse group would be one consisting of not only the equine interests, but agricultural and environmental interests as well.

How to Fracture Your Coalition

- Only care about and promote the needs of your particular association. Continue Reading

By Scott Paradis

As the sanctimonious fervor raging around the tax rates extension subsides, and we breathe a collective sigh of relief as presumably more dollars will flow to our own pockets, we find our nation accelerating down a path of self-destruction. Like addicts intent on maintaining a state of drug induced euphoria, we need ever greater doses of the choice elixir. Congress, made up of the surrogates we prefer to blame, is a coalition united in its unwillingness to cut spending, unwillingness to raise taxes and its inability to muster a coherent rationale for pursuing the agreed upon course. Failing to recognize we have a problem, we rush headlong to the altar of debt and exacerbate our predicament.

Given the myriad of arguments for and against: the rich, the poor, the working class, corporate executives, financiers, Wall Street speculators, the political class, and everyone in between we still prefer to address symptoms (shifting deck chairs on the Titanic) rather than deal with the cause.

Our grand political and economic system built over the course of two hundred plus years is dysfunctional to the point of disaster. In a system portending to be self-governing we have removed the governor and are hell bent on calamity. Every man for himself!

The founding fathers wisely understood that people with a stake in government were much more likely to cooperate and collaborate to achieve diverse self-interests. A system of government advancing the interests of the people would and could only work by distributing power amongst citizens to the maximum extent possible. Only those responsible for liabilities incurred would be prudent and judicious committing resources. People invested in government, would carefully and knowingly weigh every cost associated with any sought after benefit.

For various reasons, some good and some not so good, the United States increasingly and mistakenly centralized power in the federal government. Where formerly the people made decisions about the direction of their lives through markets and communities, today the federal government controls virtually all aspects of the economy. The power of life, death and taxes all resides in Washington.

This concentration of power divorced people from governing and increasingly obscured responsibility for liabilities incurred. The politics of government promoting the interests of citizens metastasized into the politics of special interests. The tenet of 21st Century representative democracy has become a competition of special interests – following the money. The arena for this competition is the U.S. Capitol. The vast majority of citizens are relegated to the role of spectators, while only those with big money or large voting blocks to commit influence the game. Continue Reading

By Jeff Slusser

With workplace safety playing such an important role in increasing productivity, reducing turnover, and reducing workers’ compensation insurance costs, companies are flocking to implement new safety programs. With a plethora of training and information available from insurance companies, consultants, and trade associations, why are some companies succeeding in creating a safety culture and some are not?

Here is a list of six very important items that many companies neglect to consider when developing a plan to reduce the number of workplace injuries, and create a culture of total safety. All of these areas must be addresses in the strategic planning process because, a failure to do so dramatically decreases the probability of it’s long term success.

Strong mission and vision statement

This critical step lays the foundation of your new safety process. It encompasses more than a fancy, well written ideology of the company and how you “are customer centric.” I often see companies touting safety as “priority #1″ yet they make no reference to this in their mission statement. If you make the claim that safety is your number one priority, your company mission statement must reflect this. If your goals include reducing the current number of injuries to zero in the next five years, it needs to be in your vision statement. By doing so, it creates the road map to follow instead of generic revenue goals.

Communication

Once the revised mission and vision statements are complete, communicate it to your employees. Not through the chain of command, but by holding a company wide event with a speech delivered by the president of the company or the most senior manager on site. If the message of safety is distributed through typical channels, email, memo’s, etc, there can misconstrued assumptions by your employees as to the reasons behind this effort and potentially derail it’s success. Make it clear to all of your employees that safety is not just the “word of month,” but a way of life. This will help prepare them for the changes to come and to the reasons why safety is important to the future of the company and their health and well-being. Continue Reading

By Michael Beitler

Much has been written about changing organizational culture. It’s an exciting topic because of the enormous potential benefits derived from changing an organization’s culture. While exciting because of its enormous potential, attempting to change organizational culture can lead to enormous frustration.

It is important to understand how deeply the roots of organizational culture go. Organizational culture is rooted in the shared tacit assumptions of the organization. These tacit beliefs drive behavior throughout the organization.

Edgar Schein believes organizational culture provides members of the organization “stability, consistency, and meaning.” The change agent who threatens those three things will surely meet strong resistance.

Schreyoegg, Oechsler, and Waechter (three German researchers) believe organizational culture provides members with a worldview: how to perceive, how to conceptualize, and how to make decisions.

In my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” I offered six reasons for organizational culture’s stubborn resistance to change:

1. it is implicit rather than explicit Continue Reading

By Punit Arora

Leading organizations even in best of times is no mean task. When faced with challenges like mergers and acquisitions, transnationalization/ globalization, or total restructuring of work processes, the task becomes even more daunting. The authors have, set before themselves, the task of presenting an effective ‘business strategy’ for managing such transitions. ‘Management of culture’ is the crux of this strategy. In particular, they seek to examine the issue of development of and changes in organizational culture. They also undertake to outline the pivotal role played by Organizational Communication in this process.

What is culture? How does it affect business? Why should we bother about culture and what has communication to do with it? We will take a brief look at these queries in the following paragraphs. Depending upon the context, culture could be taken to mean degree of urbanity (as in civilized vs. brutes), fine arts, common system of values, traditions and rituals, or philosophy in general. All of these forms part of or have bearing upon organizational culture. Broadly speaking, culture is ‘the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings interpret their experience and guide their actions’ (Geertz). The way the organizational members think and feel has critical impact on work performance, commitment, adaptability, and affinity with the task environment. Management of culture came to foreground after the success of Japanese companies. This success was attributed to cultural differences. Books like Theory Z (Ouchi), The Rites and Rituals of corporate life (Deal & Kennedy) and In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman) brought cultural concepts into common corporate parlance. The authors believe that, today, this has become ever more important. This is because of simultaneous demand for greater flexibility and higher control, which are contradictory in nature. Designing learning organizations, empowerment of employees, planning for quick response, etc necessitate provision for higher freedom, greater flexibility, and lesser surveillance and supervision. At the same time, the organizations must retain control to coordinate the efforts of its members for meeting the fluid demands of the environment. This goal can be met effectively “by managing the hearts, minds and souls of people, in short, culture”. After all, if the members willingly adhere to cherished norms, why would the organization need to exercise close supervision. To put it differently, the culture of an organization forms bedrock on which the platform for its success or failure is laid.
If that were the case, is it possible for an organization to give lie to the claim of T.S. Eliot that altering culture is next only to absurdity? Or can an organization pick and choose the culture as suits its needs? “While cultural values are deep-rooted, it is possible for an organization even to radically transform its culture by intervening in the culture reproductive processes. By accentuating or weakening various cultural elements, the culture can be given an entirely different shape”. Intervention in reproductive processes consists of systematic hiring (and firing) of employees, training and development, advocacy and legitimization of new values, arrangement of physical artifacts, etc. The strategy, suggested for the purpose, is basically an adaptation of unfreezing-changing-refreezing framework. Establishing a sense of urgency, forming powerful coalition, creating and communicating vision, empowering employees, producing small wins and consolidating changes and institutionalizing form the core of this strategy (Kotter’s framework for transforming business).

The assessment of present culture is the first step in this direction. “It is a complex and tedious task. Internalized beliefs, assumptions, and values cannot be easily observed or measured”. Deciphering culture requires observation, among others, of company history, socialization process, organizational stories, myths, legends, rites and rituals, employees’ feelings of involvement, identification and commitment, routines of decision-making and conflict resolution, and physical layout. This assessment forms the basis for considering the type and character of changes required. Not much is forthcoming from the book on this issue. Probably, this stems from the universalistic assumptions made by the authors. Consider an example; our assessment indicates that an organization has a concentrated power structure. What should our goal be? Is empowerment in the interest of the organization? If yes, what should be the level of empowerment? Do we introduce full-empowerment at once? Or do we chart out a stage-by-stage course? In other words, the dynamics of change process are not taken into account.
The authors have made a strong case for management of culture, empowerment and such other issues of current relevance. However, for a book that seeks to address the question of change, the most important question is not providing the justification for it, especially when its need is generally acknowledged. Rather, it is how to attain that change and how to negotiate the roadblocks on the way. The absence of such review definitely limits the utility of the book. Similarly, the dynamics of influence of macro-level culture on organizational culture or the existence of various sub-cultures within an organization have not been treated adequately.

This book is like a pulsar star, emitting bursts of bright luminosity intermittently. The chapters on Organizational Communication, Technology and Culture Development, and Ethics of Cultural Control are arguably its brightest moments. It will suffice to pen down a few observations on these topics before we round off. The first of these topics discusses various discursive instruments of framing (communication) like stories and myths, rites and rituals, metaphors, slogans and catchphrases, and artifacts in detail. In ‘Technology and Cultural Development’, the authors discuss impact of technological changes on organizational culture, structure, and power in a very informative manner. The topic on ‘Ethics of cultural control’ is also written well. But, it commences with rather an odd, and not so pleasant, an observation. “Despite the opportunity for abuse, leader-induced cultural change can lead to cultures ethically far superior to existing or native cultures.” It has two connotations. First, leaders are more capable of ethical behavior than their followers. Second, it has racial insinuations, since the context for this discussion is in the backdrop of companies turning multinational. One is left to wonder whether the authors imagine a hierarchical system of righteousness in which the natives come last!

Finally, organizations when handling transitions like mergers should deliberate on not just strategic, financial and operational aspects, but also on human aspects. “Cash flow statements may spell wonders, but the venture doom when organizations find the cultures are incompatible”. This is the central message of the book. Overall, this book is best suited to meet the needs of introductory courses in the field, especially for non-management professionals.

Punit Arora is an expert on management and public policy in developing countries. He can be reached at pun8max@gmail.com. Continue Reading