Steve Lunsford

Introduction: Culture is the Key

The culture of an organization is often not given much consideration by the everyday person due to the fact that it seems to be a very vague concept to most. Despite this vagueness, the culture of the groups in which one is involved has a daily and very important effect on day-to-day life. Three ideas from three other authors are considered in this essay, all in some way relating to organizational culture.

Group Culture: Defining the Problem

The first reading that is to be examined is “Defining Organizational Culture,” which defines culture and further defines the leader as it relates to the creation of a healthy, robust, business culture. By defining culture and examining the inner workings of dysfunctional cultures, Schein discusses the role that leaders have in defining the culture of a workplace and the impact that this can have on the overall effectiveness of an organization. (Scheen, 1995)
Scheen begins by writing on organizational cultures that were studied and evaluated with the hope of identifying the elements that make up a good culture. The objective was to evaluate these cultures in order to determine how organizational culture played a role in the success or stagnation of a business. Sheen was able to outline the following trends from his studies of a company:

1. “high levels of interrupting, confrontation and debate”
2. “excessive emotionalism about proposed courses or action”
3. “great frustration over the difficulty of getting a point across”
4. “a sense that every member of the group wanted to win all the time” (Scheen, 1995, p. 273)

Basic suggestions to directly address these issues were offered but did not seem to address problems with the underlying cultural issues that existed. (Scheen, 1995, pp. 273-275)

Sheen observed these 4 items; the first observation made was how difficult, when asked directly, the actual word “culture” was difficult for those inside the company to define. How does one foster the growth of something which cannot be defined? Sheen continues to formally define what “culture” is as it relates to a group or organization, identifying three main elements of culture:

“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved the problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and, feel in relation to those problems.” (Scheen, 1995, p. 279)
The first of these elements is the “problem of socialization,” which deals with new members who might enter a “group” and how they are taught. New members as they entered the group are taught norms in various ways, but are only allowed to understand why it is the way it is, once they are let into the inner circle of a particular group.

The second is “the problem of behavior” which is how those in a group perceive and react to the culture. It is theorized that the way that those in a group respond to a situation or a person is “a result of shared learning and therefore a manifestation of deeper shared assumptions.” (Scheen, 1995, p. 280) The third aspect to define culture addresses the existence of multiple subcultures across the overall group and the impact that these cultures have.
Sheen’s conclusion from this analysis is that his work is most applicable when trying to understand the more irrational aspects and behaviors of groups or cultures. How do the dynamics of the organization impact how people communicate, and why is that important? Has the culture of the group flourished or stagnated with time? Leadership is the differentiating variable between leading and creating a healthy culture, and being brought in and being managed by an older, and potentially unhealthy or unproductive culture.

Producing Results through Organizational Leadership

The second of the three readings that I examined was Results Based Leadership by Dave Ulrich, which examines the role of the leader in shaping the organizational culture of an organization. The culture of an organization plays a crucial role in the success of an organization, and it is essential that the leadership takes measures to address this important portion. One of the key points that stand out in the chapter, “Organizational Leadership” is the idea that the ultimate gauge of success of a leader is fostering a culture that allows the individuals to perform as a group to produce results that exceed the sum of their parts. Ulrich examines four major capabilities that are important to organizational culture in an organization: Learning, Speed, Boundarylessness, and Accountability. (Ulrich, 1999, p. 82)

The first of the four capabilities, learning, focuses on the ability of an organization to generate new ideas and implement them across the whole of the organization effectively. Coca-Cola was the example used by the author. When describing the capability of learning, Ulrich states, “Knowledge transfer takes place through technology, forums, and best practice studies.” Leaders who wish to nourish the learning culture of their organizations are constantly on the lookout for new ideas in all areas of their organizations, always keeping an open ear for innovative ideas that they can use. The people must be rewarded for generating new knowledge that benefits the whole, creating new possibilities for improvement. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 90-92)

Speed, the second capability, addresses the agility with which an organization can react to change. In most industries (technology likely being the culture most heavily impacted by this particular capability),changes in the environment around them require that constant adjustment be made in order to keep up with the always evolving demand for products, the need for change in products to meet that demand, the way that they are delivered. This is not easily achieved; even Microsoft’s Bill Gates has often “expressed a fear that at his company, compliance and arrogance will replace commitment and action.” In our quickly-evolving world, old processes can quickly become antiquated before new ones are put into action. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 92-96)

Boundarylessness is the third capability and deals with allowing people from within an organization to achieve by applying their personal areas of talent, regardless of the position for which they were hired or the area in which they work. The way that this is often done is to allow employees direct access to the leaders or to implement horizontal workgroups across the various sections of an organization. Boundrarylessness allows individuals to be heard, does not confine them to their primary skill, and allows all to potentially have a more broad impact on the organization as a whole. Ulrich theorizes, “Results-based leaders who create boundaryless organization ensure the widespread sharing of information, the enhancement of individuals’ skill through the training and development, the delegation and sharing of authority, and clear rewards to encourage sharing across all boundaries.” (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 96-97)

The final capability, and most certainly the most important to the actual implementation of the other three capabilities, is accountability. Accountability is always important to the success of an organization people must be held to certain standards in order to ensure that the right things are being done. An important distinction points out that accountability does not necessarily need to come from the traditional hierarchical model (this is management, not leadership), but can come horizontally across an organization. Accountability does not require authority in order to be effective. (Ulrich, 1999, pp. 97-98)

Knowledge Management: Converting Phenomena to Wisdom

The third essay, “Information is Knowledge in Motion”: Practical Framework for Understanding Knowledge Mangement that is being examined is by Jay Gillette and deals with the topic of knowledge management which is most certainly applicable to the topic of organizational culture and leadership. This essay deals with the use of knowledge and how it is transferred and utilized. (Gillette, 1999)

Gillette goes into great detail on the topic of Knowledge Management, addressing the topic thoroughly, but the most useful part of this essay, in the context of culture, and leadership, is the model, “Information in a Scale of Knowledge” found in Table 2. This model describes a hierarchy of the stages of knowledge, how it comes to be starting from phenomena, and evolving through various stages on its way to wisdom. (Gillette, 1999, p. Table 2)

Gillette begins with phenomena, which is a representation of something that we see or “perceive”: essentially an observation of something that we may not have previously been aware of. Moving to the next level, facts, we take these phenomena and bring them to actual information in the form of an actual statement of the fact which we have observed. Facts are translated into data which essentially are the collecting and recording of the factual information related to the phenomena. Information is, in turn, the data transformed and understood, to form a useful idea. That information is then translated into understanding which basically means that one understands the information and is thereby able to apply this to a situation. Finally, the understanding can be transformed to wisdom; Gillette states, “Wisdom guides understanding. Understanding informs wisdom.” (Gillette, 1999, pp. 6-8)

Personal Experience: Living with the Good and the Bad

My personal experience with organizational culture deals with several companies over the years, but I will focus on my professional career. Both jobs were in the same profession, were for Fortune 500 companies, had fewer than 10 employees in the office where I was located, but were very different from one another. In the first job, I was brought in, and run through a barrage of training at a corporate office, most of which was to educate me in a brief period how as to be a good salesperson and how to present the product line. When the time came to actually do my job, my manager, a large and imposing person was very quickly established as the intimidating force in the office. Every detail of my day was to be recorded and submitted. He determined whether what I was doing was the right thing, whether it was being done right, and I always suspected was constantly evaluating whether or not you were “a rainmaker,” “a potentially salvageable case,” or a “bad hire on the way out.” The culture was, on the whole, unhealthy. When evaluating the “Four Capabilities,” as outlined by Ulrich, it seemed as though, accountability was the only element of this culture that was represented at this job, but even then, that aspect was corrupted by the oppression with which it was presented. I did not flourish in this environment, and I suspect that many cultures suffer from the same malady

The second company which I was employed by was the opposite in the area of accountability. The manager was much the opposite of the previous, he had minimal interest in what I were doing or if anything was being done during the work day, just so long as everything was being done. I personally excelled in this organization because I found the independence exactly what I needed to think clearly and be productive. I did notice that a number of other salesmen came and went after being given this independence, misused it, and the management, rather than approach the situation and try to help diagnose and address the problem of productivity, would let the employee flounder until he would finally give him a month to turn the problem around, which in most cases, was too late. While I found that this situation was not particularly strong in the area of accountability, I did find that input across the organization was happily welcomed; the speed of their adjusting to industry and local trends was acceptable. I think that what made this an outstanding work environment for me was the boundarylessness that was offered by the company. People were allowed to do their job in the ways that best fit their skills by allowing the freedom to apply their own judgment of the best way to do the job, their own work ethic and effectiveness in applying personal strengths being the worst enemy. Of the two, this workplace far better met the “Critical Capabilities” that make for a good culture.

Conclusion: Leadership is the Key to Organizational Soundness

All of these readings can be brought together in defining organizational culture and how leadership applies to culture. Sheen defines what it means to have a strong corporate culture. His ideas are the appropriate way to begin investigating how a positive impact can be made on the culture of an organization. They feed nicely into the four capabilities of Ulrich that define the elements that make up the strong corporate culture. Gillette’s theories of knowledge management then apply into many of the capabilities in the form of allowing the members of the group to have their voices heard. This can be done through the observation of phenomena, making the progression, applying it as they go, eventually providing wisdom to the organization. Personal experience further validates that these theories are valid and useful.

One of the most important differentiations that these essays make is that a leader is essential to a thriving group culture; those that flounder, become obsolete, and potentially unhealthy, are those that are simply managed. The goal of a manager is generally not to create an outstanding team environment, but to consistently produce results. This often fails to take into account human needs that must be met in order for an organization to thrive and be productive as a group.

Warren Bennis said, “Everyone feels that he or she makes a difference to the success of the organization. When that happens people feel centered, and that gives their work meaning.” (Bennis, 2008) Through a thorough understanding of what organizational culture means and how it is cultivated, leaders make a tangible difference to the people around them.

Works Cited

Bennis, W. (2008). About.com. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Inspirational Quotes for Business and Work: Leadership: http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationships/a/quotes_leaders.htm

Gillette, J. (1999). Information is Knowlege in Motion: A Practical Framework for Understanding Knowlege Management. Muncie, IN.

Scheen, E. (1995). Defining Organizational Culture. In T. Wray, A Leadership Comanion (pp. 271-281). New York: The Free Press.

Ulrich, D. (1999). Organization Results. In D. Ulrich, Results Based Leadership (pp. 83-105). Boston : Harvard Business School Press.