From single issues to focus
Introduction
One of the many pitfalls when using culture as a tool of management is, when it is used to solve a single issue. Clients may ask providers to assess their actual culture to help them to realize issues such as:
- How to ensure that our people will apply our safety procedures more diligently
- How to increase our productivity, as at the moment people only do what they are told to do
- How to increase open communication internally
- How to ensure that sensitive information doesn’t fall in the hands of the competition or in hands of criminals?
The list can be endless.
In first instance it makes sense to address such issues separately, after all one cannot do everything at the same time, isn’t it? That may be true, but at the same time, that doesn’t imply that one should limit oneself to a single issue analysis, with an emphasis on the word “analysis”. It is well possible that from a cultural perspective certain objectives clash with each other. In order to show what we mean we will explain it with the help of the issues listed above.
Clashing objectives – First example
The first example refers to the first two issues listed above. Both issues can be addressed by the first dimension in The Hofstede Model. Before continuing with the example a description of this first dimension is given below:
D1, Means oriented versus goal oriented In a means oriented culture the key feature is the way in which work has to be carried out; people identify with the “how”. In a goal oriented culture employees are primarily out to achieve specific internal goals or results, even if these involve substantial risks; people identify with the “what”. It is the challenge to score as goal oriented as possible. Yet, in work situations with a substantial degree of risk such as in the process industry a means oriented score can be functional.
Positions lower than 35 are per definition dysfunctional, given the nature of the questions respondents are asked to answer. This dysfunctional area running here from 0 to 35 is called the “Internal normative window”.
Let’s now go back to the first example. Productivity will be most supported by culture if it scores 100, i.e. most goal oriented, and it will hinder productivity most if the culture scores 0. If safety is a real issue, given that the work environment is very dangerous as in the case of an oil platform at sea or in a nuclear power plant than one wants people to identify with the “how”. In such cases, safety will be most supported if the culture scores 35 and the culture will hinder realization of safety most if the culture scores 100.
It may be clear that from a cultural point of view it will be impossible to realize at the same time both the highest productivity possible and the most safe work environment. Without such an analysis what is gained on the one hand will be lost on the other hand. This does not imply that there is no way out. The following options are available:
- Suppose that the optimal position in order to realize the highest productivity possible is 75 on goal orientation. There may be many reasons why a position of 100 is impossible to reach, such as a fair degree of risks to be avoided and a fair degree of repetitive work. At the same time a score of 35 will support realization of safety procedures most. One can now create an average position between 35 and 75 being 55.
- The above option may not be very satisfactory, as such an in-between position will not support both objectives simultaneously to a strong degree. In such a case, one may want to create functional diversity as it is unlikely that safety will be the greatest issue everywhere in the same organization. In such a case one may want to create at least two sub-cultures within different parts of the organization, one scoring 35 on this dimension and the other one scoring 75.
- The above may be supported by integrating these requirements in technology, processes and systems, in such a way that human interaction is as limited as possible. This can be realized both for safety and productivity at least when it regards production of tangible products and utilities.
Clashing objectives – Second example
The second example addressing the last two objectives listed above regard two dimensions at the same time, D1 described above and D5 which will be described below:
D5, Open systems versus closed systems This dimension relates especially to the accessibility of an organization. In an open culture newcomers are made immediately feel welcome, one is open both to insiders and outsiders, and it is believed that almost anyone fits in the organization. In a closed culture secrecy prevails, which may be functional if information should not land into the street. One also has to earn one’s marks before being accepted and normally information travels slowly. Positions higher than 70 are per definition dysfunctional, given the nature of the questions respondents are asked to answer.
Internal normative window
Let’s now go back to the second example. Making feel everybody welcome will be most supported by culture if it scores on 0 on D5, i.e. extremely open. The culture will make people feel very excluded with the exception of the chosen few when it scores 100 and then also secrecy prevails. If a fair degree of secrecy is required this can be best supported by a culture scoring between 50 to 70. One should not be surprised that sensitive information falls in wrong hands, whether this concerns own inventions and innovations or whether it concerns sensitive information of clients, if the culture scores instead very open, say between 0 to 25.
The dimension D5, open versus closed system, will also influence whether information travels easily both internally as well as externally. Next to D5, the degree of open or closed communication is also influenced by the scores on D1, means versus goal orientation. A means oriented culture will hinder open communication and a goal oriented culture will support open communication.
Suppose that a fair degree of secrecy is required while at the same time a fair degree of open communication is required as well. In order to make this happen simultaneously the same options prevail as described in the first example. In this case there exists a fourth option, which can be used alone or in combination with one or more of the options listed above.
- A somewhat closed score of around 60 on D5 will support secrecy. At the same time a very goal oriented score of around 80 on D1 will still support to open communication. Thus, by combining these two characteristics both objectives can be realized. Whether it will be possible and recommendable to realize such a goal oriented score on D1 depends as we have seen above on many other factors. After all one should not limit oneself to one single issue.
Thus, if work is for most people every day the same and/or if it involves a great deal of risks and if therefore safety is a main issue, than compensation of a score of 60 on D5 cannot be realized by a very goal oriented score on D1. In such cases one better falls back on the first three options presented in the first example.
Conclusion
Culture should preferably not be used to solve single issues. Initiatives to solve single issues based on an analysis of culture will often meet resistance. These initiatives may not feel good because they go against “common sense”. Not that people will be necessarily able to formulate why this is so. What we know for sure is that people are supposed to meet many objectives at the same time in order to meet the overarching goal of their organization whether this concerns market share, profit, shareholders value or safeguarding subsidies.
It is therefore recommendable to take all requirements an organization has to meet into consideration. If only one issue is analyzed solutions may frustrate the optimal realization of other objectives. Thus it is best to go from an approach of single issues to focus. This means that one can of course focus on a single issue, as it often represents a preoccupation of the client. One should only not limit oneself to a single issue. An additional reason not to do so is that thorough analysis of culture will most often bring out other issues as well. It has happened rather often that the client decided to tackle other issues first than the one for which we were called in.
Organizations are extremely complex systems. Management should be willing to acknowledge this without of course getting paralyzed by complexity. Keep it simple but make use of sophisticated systems to align culture with strategy. It is the same as with technology being used to come up with the best product for the lowest price. That is what itimfocus is doing as well. Supplying you with the best analytical tools for the lowest price possible.
Bob Waisfisz 22 April 2010