Flaws & Change in Organizational Culture Yellowknife NT

FLAWS AND LACUNAS

The effectiveness of culture as a problem-solving device can be diminished by all kinds of flaws and lacunas. This can be a matter of goals that are irrelevant or counterproductive, insufficient adaptation to the environment or bad coordination. It also can result from a bad rapport between structure and functions. All these flaws and lacunas can interfere with an effective everyday reality. This can have negative consequences for the overall organization, as well as for individual employees who cannot work effectively any more. We will examine some of these flaws and lacunas a little more closely in the following paragraphs.

One flaw of organizational culture may stem from an incompatibility between what actually happens and what is said about what happens, a contradiction between the so called ‘theory in use’ and the ‘espoused theory’ (Schon, 1983). The espoused theory usually heralds all kinds of morally and ethically correct views and approaches, while the ‘theory in use’, which actually determines everyday conduct, is much more down to earth and usually less ethically correct. As a result, the organizational culture creates difficulties for employees who take the espoused theory literally. An example is a hospital that advertises that it exists to give its patients the best possible care and treatment, but actually keeps its beds filled at the highest possible profit per bed. Such an inconsistency can cause problems for employees who came to work there because of their attraction to the espoused theory. This may seriously affect their effectiveness, and may even cause severe stress and burnout problems. This, of course, particularly happens in organizations that attract highly ethically driven personnel, such as schools, hospitals and churches (Cherniss, 1995; Maslach & Leiter, 1997).

Though solving problems more or less automatically is a basic characteristic of all cultures and has great positive outcomes, it also has a less desirable side. Once we have devised a feasible solution, we make it part of our repertory and do not question it any more. It is buried in a ‘black box’ (Usher, 2006). In this way, we often settle for ‘just good enough’ solutions. These solutions do the trick, though they are not optimal. However, they do not create a major constraint in the organization (Goldratt, 1990); that is, as long as other factors are more critical in this respect. The same principle also plays a role in biological evolution. Calvin (1989) gives the following example of such a ‘just good enough’ solution. Ducks eat duckweed and because of that they have to be in the water for a relatively long time. To stay afloat they have fat glands under their wings, which allow them to make their wings fatty and water repellent with their bills. Cormorants, being very proficient fishers, are much more efficient in collecting sufficient food in a very short period. Thus there is no need for them to grow fat glands under their wings to prevent them from sinking, but then they have to sit for hours with their wings spread out to dry them. They keep at their just-good-enough solution until they get hungry, then dive into the water again. Turning again to organizational culture, good enough solutions can become a source of trouble in times when improvement and change become necessary.

Other flaws stem from the fact that each organizational culture, as a treasury of standard solutions for standard problems, also has its unproductive standard explanations (‘It’s a cultural thing’), solutions (‘Just a matter of budget’) and blind spots (‘There is nothing wrong with that’) (Argyris, 1983). These have their own rhetoric, which makes them sound as if we are talking about the effects of a law of nature that are ‘really’ too simple to explain. The blind spots involve certain problems, as well as certain options and solutions, which go against prevailing rules or assumptions. These unproductive standard explanations, solutions and blind spots especially come to the fore when something for which the organizational culture does not have an adaptive approach goes wrong. These standard solutions then are used to deny that things are going wrong at all. Their general logic is something like: ‘There is no problem because there cannot be a problem. No, it is only a matter of . . ., and we just should . . .’ As these reactions prevent ‘real solutions’ from being achieved, they can actually aggravate the problems of individual employees, who are bothered by such problems. As such, these reactions may lead to ineffectiveness, and they also put employees in a problematic situation without acknowledging its problematic character and therefore no insight into a solution. Unproductive standard explanations, solutions and blind spots are also used when the organizational culture is threatened by an imposed change.

Another flaw in the effectiveness of culture stems from the fact that the culture determines what we don’t do in our organization, and also what we should not say, think and feel about it (Ryan & Oestreich, 1988). As a result, the culture determines – at least to a degree – what is impossible, unthinkable and unspeakable within the organization (Schabracq et al., 2001). Consequently, certain solutions, approaches and policies are out of the question. This may even be the case when these are clearly the best option, not only to ‘objective’ outsiders but also to members of the organization who honestly are of the opinion that ‘It is a pity that this is just impossible here’. Some options are even considered to be unthinkable. We are not supposed to put these into words – unless as a joke in bad taste – because they are incompatible with the organizational frame of reference. Lastly, there are the ‘unspeakables’: options we can talk about but only with reliable and familiar colleagues, and certainly not with those who can make a difference on this issue. As we are talking about the consequences of deeply rooted assumptions, doing something effective about impossibilities, unthinkables or unspeakables implies a serious change in the culture, which of course is difficult.

Usually, these mechanisms only become manifest or are felt if there is a serious problem in a particular area. However, even then they prevent us from dealing effectively with that problem. As such, these mechanisms can keep certain problems alive. Moreover, they also undermine the everyday reality.

Chapter 4 gives a more systematic overview of the different flaws and lacunas in an organizational culture, which there are taken as sources of ineffectiveness. It also provides a general approach for dealing with these sources of ineffectiveness.

CHANGE

Though by their nature cultures fight change, this can be a deadly course. The point is that fighting change may disturb the organization’s adaptation to the environment, even though the occurrence of change in that same environment has increased explosively and still is increasing at an ever-accelerating pace. This is obviously related to the globalization of the economy and technology, and the enormously accelerated development of the latter in various areas. The other factors that usually determine the organizational environment – such as socio-cultural and political-juridical developments – can only follow and add to the turbulence (Schabracq & Cooper, 2000).

Many companies have only one option, namely adapting, as fast as they can. This means using the latest technological developments and attuning to the demands that such developments generate. It also implies other ways of working, producing and organizing. To employees, it means different contracts, permanent education and new ways of training and learning. Moreover, they are confronted with all kinds of reorganizations, mergers, management buyouts, outsourcing and so on. Though this of course does not apply equally to all organizations to the same degree, it has become clear that employees everywhere are confronted more and more with changes they did not ask for.

Albeit inevitable, these changes upset the effectiveness of the everyday reality, and its way of solving recurring problems in recurring ways. Moreover, the problems themselves change rapidly and need new solutions. The new solutions then have to be integrated in a new everyday reality. Though it is unclear whether this integration is possible at all, change has become the normal state of affairs in many organizations. We might say that this is an anomaly or even a perversion of our culture, but such a statement is not very helpful when it comes to adapting to this continuous stream of changes.

And here, we have arrived at the central theme of the book: how can we ever effectively change culture without jeopardizing the functionality of the organization and the wellbeing of its individual members? We have a few certainties here, though. First, effectively changing culture will never be easy. Secondly, there is no ready-made, one-size-fits-all approach. Thirdly, effectively changing culture without jeopardizing the organizational functionality and the individual organizational members’ well-being can only be done by people of good will, who are willing to be very open to each other. And fourthly, and certainly not the least important, changing organizational culture always involves changing individual identities.