Component Analysis Change

Cultural Web

Culture often becomes the focus of attention during periods of organizational change - when companies merge and their cultures clash, for example, or when growth and other strategic change mean that the existing culture becomes inappropriate, and hinders rather than supports progress.

Corporate culture can have a huge impact on an organization's work environment and output. This is why so much research has been done to pinpoint exactly what makes an effective corporate culture,

The Cultural Web, developed by Gerry Johnson and Kevan Scholes in 1992, provides one such approach for looking at and changing your organization's culture. Using it, you can expose cultural assumptions and practices, and set to work aligning organizational elements with one another, and with your strategy.

Cultural web can influence cultural paradigm. A paradigm is a self-consistent set of ideas and beliefs which acts as a filter, influencing how we perceive and how we make sense.

Firstly, it is the paradigm which has the major effect on our perception.
Secondly, the prevailing paradigm encourages certain types of behaviour.
Thirdly, the paradigm tends to be self-sustaining.

This 'taken for grantedness' tends to act as a 'filter' through which people in an organization make sense of their world internally and externally. This can be very helpful for at least two reasons. First, it provides a 'shorthand' way of understanding often complex situations; second, it may be the basis of the organization’s success, providing competitive advantage because the culture itself is difficult to imitate. However, it can also be problematic because new ideas may be 'filtered out' and because the culture is likely to be very difficult to change, particularly if the success of the organization has been based upon it in the past.

The Cultural Web identifies six interrelated elements; these elements are represented graphically as six semi-overlapping circles. By analyzing the factors in each; you can begin to see the bigger picture of your culture: what is working, what isn't working, and what needs to be changed. The six elements are:

a) Stories - The past events and people talked about inside and outside the company. Who and what the company chooses to immortalize says a great deal about what it values, and perceives as great behavior.
Told by Organization members that, as a form of oral history, communicate, and reinforce core elements of the culture

b) Rituals and Routines - The daily behavior and actions of people that signal acceptable behavior. This determines what is expected to happen in given situations, and what is valued by management

c) Symbols - The visual representations of the company including logos, how plush the offices are, and the formal or informal dress codes.
That convey aspects of the culture.

d) Organizational Structure - This includes both the structure defined by the organization chart, refers to the nature formal and informal differentiation and integration of task within organization.

e) Control Systems - The ways that the organization is controlled. These include financial systems, quality systems, and rewards (including the way they are measured and distributed within the organization.)

f) Power Structures – which refer to the most influential mgmt groupings in organization. The pockets of real power in the company. This may involve one or two key senior executives, a whole group of executives, or even a department. The key is that these people have the greatest amount of influence on decisions, operations, and strategic direction.


The Value of Culture Mapping
There are three main benefits to mapping organizational culture:
• Surfacing that which is taken for granted can be a useful way of questioning what is normally rarely questioned. If no one ever questions what is taken for granted then, inevitably, change will be difficult.

• By mapping aspects of organizational culture it may be possible to see where barriers to change exist and also what aspects of the existing culture are in line with the desired future strategy.

• A map of organizational culture can also provide a basis for examining what changes need to occur to deliver a new strategy and how such changes can be managed, so practical ideas for implementing strategic change can be developed.

Structural Dilemmas

Organizational structure - is the formal system of task and reporting relationships that controls, coordinates, and motivates employees so that they cooperate to achieve an organization's goals

The way a structure or culture is designed or evolves over time affects the way people and groups behave within the organization. Once an organization decides how it wants its members to behave, what attitudes it wants to encourage, and what it wants its members to accomplish, it can then design its structure and encourage the development of the cultural values and norm to obtain these desired attitudes, behaviors, and goals.

Bolman and Deal identify six such dilemmas in organization structure:
a. Differentiation versus Integration. As `organizations grow or as tasks become more complex, there is value ins specialization, but with each act differentiation comes the need at some point to integrate the various parts into the coherent whole that is the product or service experienced by the customer.

b. Gap versus Overlap. If all necessary tasks are not assigned to some position or department, key tasks may go undone to detriment of the whole organization. However, if a task assigned to more than one position or department, whether specifically or by default through ambiguity in instructions, the situation can easily become one where there is wasted effort and/or conflict.

c. Underuse versus Overload. If staff have too little work, they are likely to be bored and/or get in the way in their efforts to find something to do. If staff ore overloaded with work, their capacity to service fellow staff or customers/clients is impaired.

d. Lack of clarity versus Lack of creativity. If the responsibilities of a position are left too vague, it is easy for the employee to undertake work that the employer did not intend or wish to be done However, if job descriptions are very specific and either rigidly followed, a major source of organizational flexibility is lost and service is likely to suffer.

e. Excessive autonomy versus Excessive interdependence. A high degree of autonomy can lead to a sense of isolation, but a high level of independence can stifle quick reaction to market opportunities.

f. Too loose versus Too tight. Lack of accountability can lead to control failures, but so can attempts at very close monitoring as it may be demotivating and/or encourage people to find ways to beat the system.


Boundaryless Organization

In a boundaryless organization concept relation to improving the competitive advantage of individual workers. Companies no longer apply a rigid job descriptions and specific job-oriented to a specific employee but the company must give priority to the KSA (Knowledge-Skill-Attitude) of each activity is achieved through job analysis. Then integrate each company's work and shape it into groups related to the KSA that has been previously mapped. This integration will give freedom to employees to engage in a variety of different activities rather than just doing tasks assigned are limited by an inflexible job description.

To be able to run this concept with the optimal, the company also must have the courage to make structural changes. The main obstacles that must be faced is the vertical barriers. Traditional corporate organizations typically have a vertical organizational structures that tend to hierarchical, high ability is usually perceived by the high position, not by the mastery of knowledge and expertise. Therefore boundaryless organization is required to be free from bureaucratic nature and liberating ideas, communication, and decision making flow smoothly (Falk, 2001).

In this concept, the employee will feel appreciated even if not in high positions, because they are valued not because of his position but based on competencies (KSA). To overcome the horizontal, the management company cannot see the extent the organization of functional boxes, but as a place to share resources and competencies (Ashkesnas et al, 1995).

Implementation of the breakthrough concept of boundaryless organization "extreme and has proved successful enough to overcome the vertical constraints can be viewed on a high-tech company;

a. WL Gore & Associates Inc.. in Maryland, United States. The concept is called the "lattice organization" which in this company there is no structure "pyramid" as companies in general, there is no superior-subordinate, no command, and no job. Jobs are not run by employer "set" a subordinate, but the employees to govern themselves based on personal and community commitment (www.inc.com, 2010) ..

b. Another very successful implementation can also be seen in the company's search engine Google.com, where applicable 70/20/10 system where employees only need to use 70% of the time it works to actually doing his job, while 20% of the time it works can be used to grind / projects that groove but is still associated with the company, 10% remaining time can be used to do whatever employees want (www.inc.com, 2010).

c. More broadly on-line bookstore Amazon.com applying the concept of E-commerce as a way to overcome both external and geographical barriers by interacting directly Bussines to bussines-(B2B) with other companies and Bussiness-to-customer (B2C) on- line using the Internet network. Thereby reducing operating costs and can improve product quality


Newflash Exercise

newsflash - a short news announcement concerning some on-going news story

Tackling the diagnostic issue by getting the management of an organization to focus in very specific terms on exactly what they are seeking to achieve.

Some diagnostic models can be too abstract; something that makes the issues very concrete achieves a clearer outcome.