5. PROCESS: THE MODEL ON STRATEGY, CULTURE AND CHANGE

5.1        Introduction

If a group of people is the most complex system on earth, then it is unlikely that a change process will be any less complex. If the actual culture of a client, its optimal culture and the gap between the two are not preset, then it is unlikely that the change process will be preset.

Our method connects our change tools with the content of culture: the actual culture as measured and the optimal culture the client wants to realize. In all likelihood our approach may look very childish in the year 2100, but at the moment we believe it is the best there is.

5.2        Some change principles          

The change principles we describe here DESCRIBE our approach to the change process. Of course, this is not an exhaustive summary; the professional literature gives us many more change principles. Neither are they unshakable or infallible. Organizational culture is a means to an end in order to achieve objectives successfully. Change principles serve the same purpose. They have no meaning as such and it is always wise to check whether a particular principle suits the consultant or the client in a particular situation.

These are the change principles we will explore here:

There should be a connection between strategy and culture;

There does not exist just one good culture;

The client should be the owner of the process;

There are many ways to describe the actual culture;

There should be a connection between culture and change;

Do things in the proper order;

Keep momentum;

Culture and change are just means to an end;

Acknowledge minimum requirements to become successful;

Acknowledge the emotional component.

5.2.1        Strategy and culture

Strategy and culture belong together, even though some practitioners believe that they can help clients well by using one of the two bodies of know-how only. The author remembers a client who had invited strategy consultants from a prestigious multinational consultancy firm. These consultants expressed their amazement that we were working alongside with them.  To them, “culture” was irrelevant in assisting clients to do a better job.

The challenge is to align culture with strategy - but, on top of that, the results of cultural audits  help clients to bring their strategies more into focus. Culture is a tool of analysis and a language to reflect and discuss improvements meaningfully.  In the translation process from strategy to culture it becomes clear whether the selected strategies are feasible -  and if so, to what extent and at what costs.  It helps clients to assess whether the (im-)material costs of realizing the chosen strategies are prohibitive or not.

Example of infeasible objectives:

The police should catch as many criminals as possible. Unfortunately, police officers are not always stars in completing administrative procedures sufficiently accurately to win a court case to lock up the criminal. Authorities who impose proper handling of administrative procedures on police officers, may meet with resistance from those police officers, though not necessarily consciously. Police officers are continuously on call and cannot plan their work ahead in detail. Their work culture has a loose work discipline (D3). Such a culture runs counter to meticulous task execution.

Example of immaterial costs becoming too high:

Let’s suppose that the authorities insist on following strict and elaborate administrative procedures, despite resistance from criminal investigation departments. Let’s suppose further that the authorities have so much clout that they are able to move the culture towards a stricter work discipline. Then the immaterial price becomes too high as this  will inhibit a rapid deployment of police officers. Instead they will be all filling out forms and doing their admin chores meticulously.

If the authorities fail to change the culture, what is more likely to happen, police officers will become demotivated. They will have good reason to think that one of their core duties -  catching criminals - is being thwarted by “stupid” administrative procedures imposed on them. The way out is to allocate the bulk of administrative duties, which are after all required to get criminals sentenced, to employees whose duties are limited to these administrative tasks.

In other words, functional diversity has to be created between police officers catching criminals and those ensuring proper administrative proceedings, ensuring of course smooth communication between these two groups.

To close a gap between actual and the optimal culture, we have three options:

Change the culture,

Change the strategy,

Do both.

Rarely does a management team decide to change its strategy instead of its culture, although it is much easier to change strategy than culture.  

5.2.2        Not one good culture

There are many reasons why it is preposterous to claim that there is only one good culture. Nevertheless, many consultants insist that the best culture to perform is pre-defined. Accepting such a premise makes life of clients and consultants easier. No more need to reflect on the ideal culture. No more need to translate strategy into cultural terms. No more need to examine whether the environment in which a culture is embedded makes it difficult or impossible to optimize the fit between strategy and culture in a simple way.

The challenge is to accept that there are multiple Best Cultures and to formulate the optimal culture for this specific client who wants to achieve his objectives and strategies in the best possible way. Managers who have never reflected about their work in terms of a sound operational model on culture and change need support to translate their objectives and strategy into optimal culture. In section 3.5 we showed how this can be done by using strategic windows.

In larger and more complex organizations, more than one optimal culture may have to be formulated. Work environment of different hierarchical levels and function groups may differ that much that functional diversity between subcultures has to be created. Ideally , diversity should be limited  to differences among subcultures which are functional; i.e. which are required to allow people to handle their different work environments in the best possible way. This relates especially to dimensions 1, means versus goal orientation, D3, easy-going versus strict work discipline, and D5, open versus closed systems. Next to functional diversity it is wise to create a corporate identity to enable smooth communication and cooperation. In other words, creation of diversity just for the sake of diversity, will backfire.

5.2.3        Client is owner

At all times, the client should be in the driver’s seat of change management. This especially applies to the CEO. A CEO who is not in control of this process or is uncommitted, will in the end frustrate outside interventions as well as internal change initiatives. When change does not involve the overall organization, but just a division or department, the same applies to the top manager of that group. To facilitate a successful change process on a divisional level, it is essential to check whether the top manager below the CEO has enough autonomy to define optimal culture and make it happen. If not, the CEO has to be involved.

As we do not prescribe the optimal culture, the client has to be involved right from the start. The client knows what is feasible or not. External consultants can make an educated guess, but do not have the same inside information as the client does. An external consultant can be conducive in pointing out the consequences of the choices for the optimal culture, but not more than that.

The process should not only put the client in the driver’s seat but actually put him/her to work to achieve change

This clashes with the interests of external consultants. If external consultants have more work, they will earn more. In a time when the adagio “lean and mean”  is the norm, clients throw a lot of work into the lap of consultants. This is does not sounds very logical, but management may not have staff available to take on an extra workload. External consultants will do well not to succumb to the temptation to do all the work themselves. The way to ensure that clients do not get the feeling that realization of change will put too much additional burden on their shoulders is to integrate change into day-to-day work activities.

The more change is integrated into day-to-day work activities, the less clients have the feeling that additional work burden is put on their shoulders. As it is acknowledged that change will become more and more  part of daily work life for many among us, it is important to integrate change in normal work routine.

Not only will an integrated change process alleviate the work burden, but it will equally prepare us to face continuous transformations. The world around us changes rapidly through interconnectivity and innovations that cannot be ignored and affect our work constantly.

5.2.4        Many ways to describe the actual culture

In section 2.3 several ways to assess actual culture were discussed. One can conduct in-depth interviews and workshops, during which a lot of information about a culture is collected. One may work for a certain period of time as an “under-cover agent” within the client organization, or one may want to collect and analyze all documents published by the client and all survey results made available on the  subject of labor satisfaction, for example.

Our methodology starts with on-line data collection to measure the actual culture. This generates scores on dimensions that can be compared with scores in the databank of other organizations. If subcultures have been identified, then comparison among the different subcultures is just as important. Online data collection yields very precise results, that, however, should not be taken too literally. Work life is too complex to be captured in a precise number. These exact numbers only represent relative tendencies such as very high, high etc. when compared to other scores. To be on the safe side, we tell the client that only a difference of 10 points is significant.

For reasons of comparison we always start with quantitative data collection, although other data collection processes are certainly valuable as well.

When the results from the quantitative data collection give rise to further probing, it may be advisable to follow up with other data collection processes.  An experienced consultant knows which alternative data collection process to choose, such as in-depth interviews or workshops

5.2.5        The integrated change process

Until now we have rarely come across approaches in which the content of culture and the change process are connected. This is not so surprising, as many consultants have until now emphasized the change process per se, instead of the content of culture. Many books, e.g. tell us how to change irrespective of the content of culture.

To quite a contingent of management consultants, culture is a nice pretext to engage in a meaningful discussion with their clients. We wonder whether these consultants want their medical doctors to use the same principle, having a fruitful discussion with them without making use of any diagnostical tools such as a blood test.

We believe that it is not a question of “either, or”. Ideally content and  process should be fully integrated, but until now rarely is the content of culture matched with the change process.  

Quinn’s model includes content of culture, but not as input for the change process.

To embark on a chance process for the most complex system on earth - a group of people -means acknowledging that the process will be complex, and that we cannot predict nor preset the actual and optimal culture of a client and the gap between the two.

That is why we connect our change tools with the content of culture. For indirect change, we make use of “change levers”. From a data bank of around 800 possible interventions the client can select those interventions that address the discrepancies to be bridged in a focused way. Annex 7 presents examples of change levers on different levels of culture.

All these change levers were taken from literature and change practices. In other words, nothing new was added. The novelty is that the change levers have been connected with the content of culture.

The change levers are attributed to the 6 dimensions and in a further step, to the aspects per dimension that a client wants to change. The diagrams with the asterisks, discussed in section 3.13.2 present these aspects and their relative urgency to change. More examples are given in diagram 46 in section 5.3 and diagram 54 in section  5.3.4.

Content of culture and direct change are connected in our tool “Executive Match”. This measures in how far the behavior of a (top) manager will hinder or enable realization of the optimal culture. The Executive Match is a 360° assessment tool but differs from similar 360° tools in that it is not based on generic management principles but on the optimal subculture that management wants to build in their own management team. The results are calibrated against the actual subculture of the management team and against the optimal subculture as defined by them.

Normally, top managers should relate differently to their work than the other layers in the organization. Whether top management should also relate differently to everybody else in the organization and to the outside world cannot be predicted. The challenge is to build unity in as far as feasible, and only create functional diversity if this helps to achieve the common goals. Only a change approach that integrates process and content does justice to the complexity of work life.

5.2.6        Proper order

Does it matter in which order you embark on the change process? Actually, we are not prescriptive here. There are many processes that lead to sustainable change.  For example, we experienced that managers in Brazil insist on doing it their way, perhaps because it then gives them the idea that they are in control. However, we have our reasons to follow a certain course. We present three propositions and describe our preferred process in more detail.

Defining optimal culture before revealing actual culture

After the online survey by which the actual culture is measured, management determines the optimal culture in Workshop 1. After they have come to a conclusion about their optimal culture, we show the results of the online survey on the actual culture. This order is important, as it prevents management from being biased. Management  needs to analyze work reality with a blank mind, without any preconceived ideas. At times, the client objects to this order and then we show the scores of the actual culture beforehand. It will not obstruct the process, but may diminish its effectiveness somewhat. After all, after having read the report with their the results they are asked to reassess the optimal culture they had defined. The report may induce them to reconsider the optimal scores they had chosen earlier.

If a client comes up with requests that will obstruct the effective execution of the change process, we will not take on the assignment. In section 5.2.9 you will find more about this.

Distrust and anxiety

If there is a lot of distrust and anxiety in the organization, it is highly advisable to address that before anything else, certainly if a direct change process is envisaged.

Whom to involve when

The ones who will define the strategy and the optimal culture or subcultures need to have:

An overview of the context in which the organization operates;

An overview of what is required in the near future to maintain or to improve results.

This implies that the higher managerial levels should define strategy and optimal culture, unless there are rank and file people who meet these two requirements as well, for example work councils. Involving the work council brings positive contributions and a higher level of buy-in. Depending on the content of the optimal culture, involvement of the work floor is normally very constructive when it comes to formulating tangible change activities at a later stage.

We plan the process according to a scenario, while ensuring sufficient flexibility to adjust to the circumstances and the requirements of the client - as long as these do not obstruct a successful implementation. If a client wants to test our approach, we prefer a pilot with top management because:

They should  be in control and at all times be the owner of the strategy and culture. Top management should never delegate the final formulation of  its strategy and optimal culture.

 Top management has to define its own optimal culture, but also that part of optimal culture that is shared across hierarchical levels, units and function groups. This serves as  the glue of its organization.

The message comes across stronger if management shows that they are brave enough to test the waters.

Ideally the CEO and his direct colleagues should not delegate formulation of mission and vision statements or formulation of general objectives and strategies away. They are of course free to involve as many employees as they like during the process of formulation, but they should keep final responsibility. This is normally a fact of work life, accepted by most top managers. This, however, is less the case for the formulation of optimal culture, despite the fact that strategy and culture ought to be fully interlinked. If it is accepted that both topics belong together, then it may be easier to convince top management that they should also keep final responsibility for the definition of the optimal culture. This, by the way, will enforce the importance of starting the process at the level of top management, particularly if more than one subculture has been identified internally and if these subcultures will be measured separately. Suppose the process starts at a lower level, say at the level of the Sales Department.

Management of Sales will then define the optimal culture. If top management has not already done the same exercise, it will be hard for top management to support the optimal choices made by management of the Sales Department, certainly regarding those aspects which should unite the different subcultures.

5.2.7        Keep momentum

Management should acknowledge the importance of keeping momentum. Without momentum any change process will lose credibility in the eyes of employees. This certainly applies to a direct change process but can equally play a decisive role in indirect change. If a long period has elapsed between data collection and presenting the results to employees, people will rightly or wrongly infer that management has something to hide, probably information that points to the failures of management. This may push the culture towards a closed (D5) and more means oriented (D1) culture [1] . If this is in line with the optimal culture as defined by management, withholding information may be the right thing to do. If this is not the intention of management, the process will negatively impact outcome. Notably if management wants to create a more open (D5) and more goal oriented (D1) culture.  

Report-generating software substantially shortens the time frame between data collection and sharing the results with employees. Until 2010 we wrote these reports by hand and that was a time-consuming exercise, certainly when more than one report had to be written.

Momentum can be thwarted if employees feel threatened by change, certainly if they have enough time to indulge in slander. It is for this reason that we advise management to ensure that everybody is so busy that there is no time left for the grapevine [2] .

Such warnings may apply more to the not-for-profit sector than to the competitive commercial sector.

Momentum can also be thwarted by defensive top managers who deny the results. This is rare, but does happen occasionally. One of our colleagues encountered this situation once.  Even prior to receiving the results, the CEO was already rather defensive. When our colleague commented on the results and gave the CEO feedback on his interactions with other managers, the CEO started to argue about words. He asserted that he was not unable but unwilling  to fill the void between him and middle management. Our colleague tried to de-escalate this fierce argument, but the CEO became ever more angry up to a point where he became intimidating. Our colleague remarked that this was now exactly the reason why the other managers were afraid of him. Then the CEO spitted out: “Ah, you purposely upset me so that you could tell me this”. Our colleague told him that he was not sufficiently politically savvy to do so, but to no avail. The culture scan had clearly shown that this CEO was extremely defensive. “If you didn’t agree with him, you were against him”.

Now many years later, change efforts are slowly picking up,  still based on our findings.

5.2.8        Culture and change; means to an end

Organizational culture is a tool of analysis and a language that allows us to discuss in a meaningful way how to improve. Efforts to change culture should not be initiated as standalone projects, but tie in with on-going activities that aim at executing our work more efficient, effective and, yes, with more joy. This does not imply that such changes are necessarily incremental. Cultural change may involve turnaround management, if aimed at changing the core activities of a company,  e.g. in the case of a company which wants to move from production of bulk chemicals to the production of fine-chemicals. Or it may involve mergers and acquisitions, if at least one partner has to realize substantial adaptations. Culture and change are a means to an end, so it is wise to de-emphasize these words.

Using the word “culture”

After the reporting-phase, the word culture no longer needs to be used.  The word “culture” sometimes carries negative connotations because it refers to the “tell and sell” approach, which too often failed. What matters is that attitudes and behavior of employees - including top management – lead to achieving their goals in a more efficient, effective and gratifying way. The word “culture” can even be dropped right from the start. Instead we could use: “work practices”, “the group factor” or “work reality”. Culture is a tool of measurement and analysis; nothing more and nothing less.

Using the word “change”

As with the word “culture”, using the word “change” should equally be avoided whenever  possible. Its implicit message is that things have gone wrong in the past. The need to change expressed explicitly by top management, invokes that rank and file people tell management: “Just you show me”. Or: “You change, I change”. If they don’t dare to say so, they may at least think so. That may be a logical reaction, but management has a special function and therefore may have to behave differently. Functional diversity may e.g. imply that top and senior managers should behave in a less strict way than e.g. secretaries, administrative staff and web designers.

5.2.9        Acknowledge minimum requirements

First things first. If minimum requirements are not met, forget about cultural change. Thus, acknowledge the minimum requirements which have to be met before (culture) change can be realized successfully.

Minimum requirements come in two categories:

Dysfunctional attitudes and behavior of management

Distrust and/or anxiety

If these categories prevail, they have to be addressed first.

First ensure that:

Board members agree about mission, vision and objectives of their organization;

Power play among top managers that blocks sound developments is addressed;

Top managers are fully committed, do not shy away from responsibilities and reserve enough time to make change really happen.

If the CEO and top managers are unwilling to meet these requirements, realization of optimal culture will in all likelihood fail. External consultants should be prepared to hand back such an assignment, unless there are strong indications that the top will become more constructive during the process.

Distrust and anxiety also need to be addressed upfront. Such emotions can frustrate a direct change approach. In financial and economic volatile times this should not be underestimated, especially when change entails laying off people. Once the decision is taken to shrink the labor force,  dismissals should follow quickly.  If not, distrust and anxiety will increase and the most qualified employees will leave “voluntarily”, since they have the biggest chance of finding somewhere else another job.

5.2.10        Acknowledge the emotional component

Culture scans and the follow-up usually arouse emotional responses. Culture scans generate information on the central tendencies in groups. Individuals are not singled out, with the exception of the CEO and managers of the measured units. They are important factors in shaping the (sub)culture and can, to a degree, be singled out. Several questions relate to the way a group is managed.

Managers who are singled out                 

No report ever mentions the names of managers who have been singled out. It is impossible to attribute with any certainty dysfunctional aspects of a subculture to the manager of a certain unit. Certainly when the information doesn’t concern the top manager of the overall organization, the information should be treated with prudence because the management style of a division leader is:

influenced by his/her superior

Influenced by the style of his/her predecessor which is still part of the subculture

Influenced and partly overruled by the overall culture

Thus, managers are always implicitly singled out, never explicitly. The information may nevertheless give us a good insight into dysfunctional aspects. For example, the manager:

may be working above his/her competence level

is unable to handle constructive criticism

is playing political games

is unable or unwilling to support his/her direct reports

is too autocratic or paternalistic

If outcomes of the scan can damage a particular manager, it is crucial to share this first with the person concerned, before sharing the report with others. The whole purpose of the exercise is to support the client and it is in nobody’s interests to make information public that can be harmful to some. Dysfunctional behavior of individuals should be redressed. If these individuals don’t change their behavior, then they should be transferred or fired but not pilloried.

Despite our careful code of conduct, it is clear that such information can come across as very threatening. External consultants should be ready to handle negative reactions from managers or staff who feel “betrayed”.

Direct change can be threatening                                                                                            

Direct change can be menacing, certainly when employees - rightly or wrongly - assume that there will be winners and losers. If dismissals are to be expected then it is important to:

Do it quickly and decisively;

Do it in a humane way;

Make it clear to those left behind that they are not next in line, for example by offering training and education. By doing so, it shows that management is committed to keep everybody else on board.

No escapes

It is extremely easy for top managers to ignore their own dysfunctionalities, despite the fact that these dysfunctionalities become visible by comparing the actual culture with the optimal culture as defined by themselves. Being in control, managers can come up with a thousand excuses why this time they have no time for “culture” as they have to deal with so many much more important issues which need their immediate attention, so they say.

Such behavior can be best compared with the captain of a soccer team who doesn’t want to reflect about how his team can win the next match. But that is not how many top managers look at their work reality, because culture is soft, isn’t it?

Therefore, a very compelling direct change tool is required to motivate them to consider their own behavior, attitudes and convictions and to get them moving. A 360 degrees assessment tool can be very conducive. Not an ordinary tool based on generic management principles, but one that mirrors their behavior against the optimal culture that was defined by them. It is then not so easy to reject or downplay such findings.

Contradictory information or denial

A client may not immediately recognize Information presented in such a culture report. External consultants should welcome discussions about contradictory findings. Such discussions lead both the client and the consultant to a deeper understanding of the client’s work reality. There is no reason for external consultants to feel threatened, as the generated reports are fully based on answers the respondents have given. The chances that these answers depict a clear picture of work reality is high. Hofstede knows probably better than anybody else how to avoid socially desirable answers as much as possible when designing questionnaires that address culture.  

Top managers in denial

Not just the results of culture scans and follow-up may provoke a lot of emotions among top managers. There are those who vehemently reject the use of culture as a tool of management and state that culture is for softies. Let us review our definition: “Culture describes the way in which people in their organization, including top managers, relate to each other, to the outside world and to their work”. If top managers do not believe that this is an important part of their work reality, their implicit message can be that they do not care about people’s emotions. “Emotions have no importance; just get on with your work”, they may think or say. At the same time these tough guys can be quickly upset or offended if people do not do what they were told to do, or when they are contradicted. Getting upset or offended are also reflections of emotions. Why then not acknowledge emotions in others? Without emotions we are robots - and as robots we would indeed not have to worry about culture. Research of Hofstede has shown that those who behave explicitly as the toughest guys are often the most vulnerable.

5.3   One of many scenarios

There are many ways to realize change. We prefer a particular sequence of activities, but it goes without saying that one should always be prepared to deviate from the process, unless the client proposes deviations that lead to nothing. Our preferred workflow is shown in Diagram 41 below.

Diagram 41

Start with an intake to find out what the client wants to realize. Then collect data to measure the actual culture, expressed in scores in the model, and measure the environment in which the culture is embedded, expressed by the external normative windows.

Diagram 41 can be split into three more detailed pictures that show more precisely our preferred workflow.

Diagram 42

Input to realize workshop 1 are the strategic windows. The strategic windows have been constructed based on the size of the normative windows. The size of the internal normative windows are fixed, which one exception. In all cases in which people are physically threatened the window has to be made smaller. The size of the external normative window is defined by the environment in which the culture is embedded. This has been measured during the on-line data collecting process, next to a measurement of the actual culture. The way this is presented during workshop 1 is presented in Diagram 43 below:

Diagram 43

In Workshop 1, the client assesses the optimal culture per dimension. For each dimension the strategic window is shown, which of course differs per dimension and per (sub-)culture. The model should be well explained conceptually and larded with examples. In other words another part of the input of workshop 1 is extensive know-how of the model. The participants, usually the management team, need to be aware of the purpose, vision, mission, objectives and strategy they want to achieve. This workshop helps them to focus better on these concepts and on who they want to be. Annex 6 can serve as input for participants to assess their optimal scores.

It is not necessary that every manager or the entire MT participates to assess the optimal culture. It can be discussed with only the top manager, but then buy-in has to be obtained later on. Output of workshop 1 are optimal scores on the dimensions. Based on these optimal scores and the results of the measurement of the actual culture a report will be generated. In workshop 2 this report will be discussed, see diagram 44 below.

Diagram 44

The salient findings in the report are presented in diagrams. Diagram 45 presents the results on all eight dimensions. For each dimension two bars are shown:  one presenting the actual score and the other the optimal score. All optimal bars are blue. The actual bars have different colors depending on the gap between the actual and optimal scores. Dark green indicate a high functionality, whereas red indicates a very large dysfunctionality.

Diagram 45

D iagram 46 presents which aspects per dimension, expressed in a color different from green, offer scope for improvement. This diagram is similar as diagrams 37 and 54. Every  “diagram with asterisks” contains different information, as the number of combinations are endless. In section 3.13.2 you will find an explanation about how to read these diagrams.

Diagram 46

Before discussing the report the consultant should carefully check whether it contains anything that might damage the manager of the group whose culture was measured. Normally, managers have no objections even if the report contains somewhat damaging information about him. Sometimes therefore managers have to be protected against their lighthearted openness or bold behavior. The text in a report should never be changed, but can be omitted.  After this check the report will serve as input for Workshop 2. Ideally the same group participates as in Workshop 1 to ensure that all know the model and also to avoid duplication of discussions.

In Workshop 2 the participants check if their work reality has been correctly described and whether any explanations are needed. The consultant may sometimes also need clarification, certainly in the case of unusual outcomes. Given the countless number of different reports that can be generated, this is not uncommon.

After an informative discussion in which additional information may surface, participants review the optimal scores. After all, they described their optimal situation with the help of a model they may not have been familiar with. For this reason it is essential that consultants have enough work experience to highlight consequences of the choices made during the first workshop and if so required during this second workshop. If the report contains a diagram with asterisks , implying scope for improvement, the participants select the characteristics they want to work on. That is, if they want to redirect their actual culture towards the optimal culture. The communication strategy should ideally be discussed in this workshop as well. If the measurement was limited to top management, there is hardly any need to do so. If such a limitation doesn’t exist, then it is essential to consider how to inform colleagues and employees certainly those whose culture has been measured.

There are many options to start and to manage a change process. Literature about change management is overwhelming in its choices. We have nevertheless developed our own change philosophy and change tools  to ensure an integrated approach. The diagrams 47 and 48 show our indirect and our direct change methodology will be executed.

Diagram 47; Indirect change

Suppose that in Workshop 2 the client expressed its unhappiness that employees identify too much with their direct boss or direct colleagues instead of with the content of their job (statement 3 in diagram 46). How to change these words into actions? Our list of change levers contains around 800 items that are categorized around the dimensions. For each statement a tailored list of change levers can be generated that assist the client to implement change. The change levers are much more tangible, yet still only words. Change initiatives are often bogged down because words are not translated into real life activities.

In Workshop 3 people are invited to translate the change levers into real life activities and to initiate the first implementation phase. See for a more detailed description section 5.3.6.

Diagram 48; Direct change

There is no one to tell the CEO to change his/her convictions, attitude and behavior. It will not be easy for top managers to change, certainly not convictions which may be very dear to them. The solution is a mirror that reflects the CEO’s convictions, attitude and behavior in such a clear manner that (s)he can no longer deny that (s)he has to change if (s)he wants to pursue success on the long run.

The “mirror” we developed is an online survey which is administered to all immediate colleagues of the top manager, next to a self-assessment. Its 44 items describe opposite behavior, attitudes and convictions in terms of the model.  For example:

16. When he likes you, he confides in you, when he doesn’t like you he will not do so

     1     2     3     4     5

16.  He stimulates cooperation among the management team

The outcomes show to which degree this top manager will enable or hinder realization of the optimal culture. This description is obtained by a quantitative comparison of his/her scores with the optimal scores and a qualitative part. Section 5.3.7 gives a more detailed description.

The process described in the diagrams 41 to 48 is divided into several steps. In Chart 1 the steps are divided in preparatory activities and in Chart 2 in change management activities.

Chart 1

Chart 2

For steps 1-4 and 6-7, detailed charts have been made with descriptions of the activities one may want to deploy (sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.6). For step 5, change strategy, no separate description is presented. This can be done from a very generic level to a very precise and specific level and everything in-between.

5.3.1        Step 1: Intake

Step 1.1        Introduction

The chart below gives an overview of the activities which clients may want consultants to address. Depending on time constraints while trying to win the assignment, all or a selection of these topics can be covered in a first discussion with a potential client or in additional meetings.

Chart 3

During the intake the following should be explained to potential clients, so that they can decide whether they want to go ahead with a culture scan - and if so, to whom the client wants to grant the assignment:

The first question a client wants to answer is whether the offerings will help you, as a client?

Note:  in reality the process is more complex. It may well be that to convince a client of the added value, consultants have to start with just one scan. Preferably top management is the first to undergo a scan. In our experience, once the top has experienced a culture scan, it is hooked and wants to know the results of fully-fledged measurements that cover the whole organization or that division which needs special attention.

In other wor ds, once top management becomes involved, they value our approach. Unless in rare cases where they are so defensive that they refuse to look at their own contributions in shaping culture.

Ideally at least the following should be decided during the intake:

Identification of the number of groups to be scanned separately

Scanning only actual culture or also work paradise

Handling logistics

Monitoring of the process

Step 1.2        Find out what the issues are: Why are you calling us in?

Do not take for granted that a prospect wants to talk to you because they assume that your offerings meet their needs. It is important to find out which issues they want you to address. For example, if they invite you to assess customer satisfaction, then this goes beyond the scope of culture scans. This belongs to the domain of marketing agents.

A culture scan does not measure the culture of individual consumers and even if it could, it would not be useful. Culture scans do not tell you how pleased consumers are with the products and services of your client.  There are much more simpler ways to find this out.

A culture scan will tell us to which degree the actual culture is Helps or hinders employees to service clients well. Customer satisfaction will be only partly be defined by the culture of the provider. Other aspects which define customer satisfaction are e.g. the relationship between price and value as well as the offerings of other providers.

Even when the issues of a prospect are of a strategic and cultural nature, a cultural scan may not meet their needs. An organization e.g. with fewer than twenty employees is normally too small to produce a very reliable pictures of its culture. In such a case, the personality of the owner or manager is so dominant that one cannot be sure that a precise picture of the culture can be obtained. In such a case other data collection processes may suffice aimed at scanning small group dynamics.

Be wary of top managers who want to obtain a picture of company culture, but not of its own management team. The top normally has the most profound impact on the culture of their organization. If the management team is not included, an important piece of the puzzle is lacking. If it is unlikely that the management team will participate later, we will not accept the assignment. The effect of such interventions without real commitment from the top is nil. (see also step 1.7).

The question now arises what the difference is between small group dynamics, belonging to the domain of social psychology, and organizational culture, belonging to the domain of sociology. It is a matter of numbers to start with. Small group dynamics refers to groups consisting of around 7 to 8 members. Culture refers to bigger groups. The difference is that small group dynamics can be changed more easily than culture due to the size of the group.

Replacement of the manager of a small group will have normally a much bigger impact on group dynamics than in the case of much bigger groups.

Step 1.3        From single issues to a focused approach

Many recommendations written by consultants end up in clients’ desk drawers. One reason is the “single issue approach”, already discussed in section 4.6. It does not make sense to use culture as a management tool to solve only one “problem”. For example, “health and safety” is a major issue in many companies. But creating a “safe culture”, not only on the work floor of the production facilities, but throughout the company, may clash with other objectives such as profitability, market share, innovation and happy hard-working employees. Such objectives compete with each other in terms of financial results and type of culture that facilitates the achievement of all those different objectives. Whilst we do not belittle the importance of “health and safety”, we should balance the various requirements in such a manner that execution of recommendations are feasible and don’t contradict each other.

In the same vein, we warn against the myopic application of management fashions. New ideas and tools for proper management might contribute to successful management, but not by definition. They are frequently over-emphasized and cause other important managerial tasks to be neglected.

Take quality control systems. Nobody can be against the introduction of clever quality control systems. If, however, such a system is overemphasized, it will move the culture into a means oriented direction (D1). If that was the intention, then it’s fine. If this was not the intention, then the positive effects of introducing and maintaining such systems will be countered by a decrease in working smart and productively.

Step 1.4        Identifying the number of groups and minimum number of respondents

Groups can be scanned separately, divided into various categories, for example hierarchical  echelons, function groups, locations, or whatever delineation is important to a client. By “group” or “unit” we mean any separate entity within an organization to be measured separately.

Number of groups:

Ideally, the echelons that are involved in data collection are:

Top and senior management: those who manage other managers;

Middle management: those who manage operational staff at least 50% of their time;

Operational staff: anybody else.

Even if a client just wants to measure one group or if there are no subcultures, preferably three audits are conducted, unless a particular echelon is too small.

Depending on the size of the work force and the number of hierarchical levels, more than three echelons can be involved. We can add for example:

Supervisors: those who manage operational staff at least 50% of their time.

Why distinguish between hierarchical levels?

Work demands differ. In the optimal situation there are differences between the echelons on means versus goal oriented (D1), easy-going versus strict work discipline (D3) and open versus closed system (D5). Work discipline (D3) in particular describes how people relate to their work. If management has a tighter work discipline than lower levels, this may point at a dysfunctional differentiation. If management has a more closed system than the lower levels, this may indicate another dysfunctionality. See also 3.13.3.

The actual cultures among these echelons reveal the social dynamics between them. Such dynamics can be functional or not, but they certainly produce a lot of information which can be used to improve managerial skills in a specific cultural context.

It is questionable whether hierarchical levels represent different subcultures. When managers interact more with one another than with their reports, they may form a separate subculture.  If that is not the case, then such layers don’t represent different subculture in the true meaning of the word. Nevertheless, in this way additional useful information can be collected about the interaction between those layers.

If a client wants to map the whole organization, subcultures need to be identified that will be measured separately. For this, the client assesses salient differences in behavior and attitudes between groups. Such salient differences should relate to groups and not to individuals, and normally reflect the existence of subcultures within an organization.

There are two extremes when clients assess the number of subcultures in their organization. Some clients want to economize and come up with salient differences between groups, but insist that they want an average assessment. In an average assessment, salient differences are likely to disappear; extremes may average each other out. If clients want to economize on the measurement, we recommend to select that part of the organization which is most crucial for success. The data collection can always be extended later, if the client is pleased with the results and sees the need for more information.

Other clients are so eager to explore their organization, that they come up with numerous, sometimes imaginary, subcultures. In general, no organization hosts more than six subcultures, apart from the differentiation between echelons. In exceptional instances, a culture may hold more than 6 subcultures, for example when:

The organization is fully diversified.

Parts of the organization are 100% autonomous.

Divisions are involved in totally different activities. For example, a chemical company which produces both bulk and fine chemicals should diversify on means versus goal oriented (D1) and internally versus externally driven (D2).

Divisions or branches are based in different countries, because national culture is one of the many factors that shape organizational culture.

In such cases, it makes sense to measure more than 6 subcultures, provided the branches or divisions are large enough and such differentiation really matters to the client.

Work council

In order to strengthen the acceptance of culture scans and forthcoming change initiatives, it can be useful to involve work councils hands-on, by also measuring their subculture. By doing so, members of work councils will generally become very much interested in the outcome of the whole process. Moreover, in certain countries in which work councils have an important role to play by law - such as Germany - work councils will then understand that culture scans offer them additional tools in order to have meaningful discussions with management about strategic issues.

The work council should not be treated as a separate subculture. The culture scan is just to arouse their interest and involvement. Members of work councils come from different groups and their interaction in work councils is normally too limited to create its own separate subculture.  Every member remains part of the subculture in which (s)he works. If a work council forms a proper reflection of all employees, its “subculture”  should not deviate too much from the average culture of the organization - excluding higher management levels, which are not represented by the council. A clearly distinct subculture of the work council most likely points to exceptional interactions between the work council and top management over a long period of time.

The challenge

The challenge is to assist clients to distinguish the units that will be measured separately. It may look commercially attractive if clients identify a lot of units. But take care! Too many units may backfire on the consultant and on management. The separate reports are not very long but contain a lot of information. Clients should be able to digest all information and do something with it. It will backfire if clients do not use the generated information because it is too much to handle. Information overload is aggravated if it turns out that some distinctions make no sense.

What’s more, we are not in this business to sell hot air. We want to generate information that helps our clients to do a better job - and the same should apply to other change agents.

But again, in the case of culture, never say “Never” and never say “Always”. Groups of people are too complex. Cultural audits assess central tendencies within groups. They are not about individual opinions or individual work reality, only the one in charge of a certain group will more or less explicitly enter the picture.

Ensuring anonymity

The data collection is anonymous to avoid socially desirable answers. After the data have been collected, the composition of the groups can no longer be changed as respondents receive an URL to the survey by email. It is not easy to take away feelings of suspicion if the data are collected online, even more so when suspicion is already part of the actual culture.

In our survey 4 demographic questions are included because demographics such as age and gender influence culture. These demographic questions present in total 17 options to choose from. For age e.g., respondents can select from 5 categories. This may lead respondents to doubt if the survey is truly anonymous; it might be easy to deduct who said what from these demographic questions.

In essence, we are not interested in who answered what, we are interested in the general tendencies within groups. Apart from that, we take careful measures to ensure anonymity. But if suspicion reigns there is no way to prove that anonymity is 100% guaranteed, so answering these last 4 demographic questions are optional and not obligatory.

In one of our cultural audits, respondents from Production  became upset when they heard that different audits were conducted for Production , Sales  and Admin . To the respondents from Production, this meant that the survey was no longer anonymous and they felt betrayed. We invested time to explain to them that it was useful to distinguish between function groups, as different work requirements ask for functional diversity. Singling out   Production  did not jeopardize anonymity at all.

Who assesses the optimal culture of whom?

The answer to this question may look obvious but is not always straightforward. As a rule of thumb we can say that:

The highest in rank in any organization will define the optimal subculture - at least for the group he/she manages alone or together with colleagues.

The optimal subculture of operational staff, i.e. those who do not manage, will be defined by their manager or management team. Whether the management team wants to involve operational staff members may depend on the actual culture, on the ambitions of management regarding  the optimal culture of operational staff and it may depend on the educational level of operational staff members.

If management wants to maintain or install a more consultative leadership style, management may want to involve operational staff. Whether this is feasible depends on their level of education. In the case of professionals, one may want to involve all of them. Operational staff members with lower levels of education may not be able to contribute anything during the first two workshops and only get turned off if they are nevertheless forced to participate [3] .

If groups of operational staff are managed by only one manager and if these groups have been scanned separately - such as sales or marketing - then it is possible that not a management team, but the manager together with one or more of his operational staff members will assess their optimal culture.

The question arises as to how to structure this process for the management levels in between top management and operational staff. Let’s take the example of 4 hierarchical levels that are separately scanned:

Top management

Senior management

Middle management

Operational staff

Who will assess senior management and who middle management? Should these two groups assess their own subculture or should top management assess the subculture of senior management and senior management of middle management?

Benefits when senior and middle management assess their own optimal subculture are:

They know best which requirements to meet in order to do work optimally;

More readily acceptance of change, based on the gap between actual and optimal culture.

Benefits of a more top-down approach are:

Top management has a better overview of the requirements the total organization has to meet also regarding senior management. The same goes for senior management regarding middle management.

It is the responsibility of top management to guide, manage and support senior management.  The same applies to senior management regarding middle management.

The two approaches can also be combined:

Each level assesses its optimal culture. The selected optimal scores are sent upwards for approval. Middle management forwards its optimal scores to senior management.

If senior and middle management disagree about the optimal culture, they should discuss this together. Senior management is in principle able to overrule middle management, but they should only do so if they can come up with a clear and logical explanation based on strategic considerations why they disagree with middle management..

Then senior management forwards their optimal scores, together with those of middle management, for approval to top management.

It is questionable whether senior and middle management will have always different subcultures. Yet it makes sense to assess the hierarchical levels separately because if differences exist the subculture of every echelon gives information about the way each echelon is managed. By comparing the actual subcultures of the separate echelons, social interaction and dynamics surface. This gives salient information about management and culture.

Measuring the echelons separately may pay off and it does not need to be time consuming, because:

It strengthens the strategic intent of a client.

It will be easier for everyone to fully support the objectives of their organization. This  automatically leads to a stronger goal orientation (D1), if required.

Assessment of the optimal culture below top management is normally limited to only three dimensions: D1, D3 and D5.

The three workshops do not need to be conducted for all managerial levels separately. Notably in the case of  senior and middle management, participants  can be joined together unless there exists a lot of distrust between the two echelons.

Number of respondents:

A minimum of 20 respondents per group is required to obtain reliable data, if the respondents have been selected at random. Experience taught us that 35 persons should be invited to obtain 20 respondents. Non-response in on-line data collection may be significant.

The minimum number of respondents is independent of the size of the total group. It does not matter whether the respondents are selected from a group of 40 or 2000 employees.  The reliability of the results increases only marginally when the sample is enlarged, no matter the size of the target group.

If a unit hosts less than 35 employees, efforts should be made to have everyone participate in order to reach the minimum number. Management teams frequently have less than 20 members. The smaller the group, the more it should be stressed that everyone should participate in the scan.

Reliability of the findings decreases quickly if the group is small and the non-response high. In very small units, it is not so much culture that is measured, but small group dynamics. Our tools are not designed for small group dynamics and in such cases the result should be presented with caution and prudence.

Although in general a small group, we always measure the subculture of top management separately. But even in this case, the group should hold at least 5 members. Whenever possible, others who cooperate closely with them, such as the executive secretary, are invited to participate as well. This increases the reliability of such an “inter-subjective” data collection process.

If it is not the intention to measure culture, but for example compare perceptions then the scan can be used for even smaller groups.  A colleague once conducted an audit for top management team, consisting of two men only. This should not have been done, but iIt turned out that both top managers were much more achievement-oriented than the rest of the organization, and held completely different views on important aspects of their work reality, which made it hard on them to cooperate. In all honesty, this could have been smarter assessed in other ways, but it was nevertheless an unexpected finding.

Step 1.5        Limit a quick scan to actual culture or include work paradise

We recommend to include a measurement of work paradise as a standard procedure.

The additional scan of work paradise focuses on what people desire . The results of this scan are not shown in the reports, but compared with the norm. Deviations from the average scores in our data bank give complementary information about the actual   culture.

Prospects at times express their concern about the length of the survey and the time it takes to complete. If this becomes a decisive factor for prospects to go ahead or not, we  limit scans to the actual culture.  Yet, measuring work paradise is extremely beneficial when prospects are facing issues such as:

“We know that things are going wrong, but we have no clue why”;

“We have tried everything to correct people’s behavior, but in vain”;

“Our company has gone through a traumatic period in the past and we notice that this left its traces on people’s work morale, but we don’t know how to address it”;

“There is pain in our organization, but we are unable to specify what and how”;

“Our strategy and culture are not aligned”.  This latter remark is often heard when a company has invested tremendously in formulating “core values”, which despite all money and energy are not practiced by the employees.

The additional information generated by asking respondents to describe their work paradise will give very salient information about the actual culture. In other words, it will provide information on a deeper level of reality. Or it will indicate that there is a mismatch between strategy and culture.

It is also possible that a scan of work paradise coincides with the norm, by which no additional information about the actual culture will be generated. Absence of such information is normally in itself a positive finding. Including work paradise is cost-neutral for the client so that whatever the outcome is,  the client cannot accuse us of overselling.

Step 1.6        Sequencing change activities

In many instances it is wise to sequence change activities and not to lump them altogether. Changing a culture is not an easy task and more often than not, feelings of anxiety and distrust run high when people are told that their culture has to be changed.

Two of our clients were in the process of integrating part of their operations into a new organization. It was decided to start with integration and only after successful conclusion, move on to optimizing operations. This turned out to be a wise decision. The operations that were to be integrated, had been structured in a, let’s say, organic way and it took quite some time to unravel the hierarchical levels and function groups to be integrated. If they had started with optimization the end result would have been a total mess. They would not have known whom to address for what.

When there is distrust and anxiety  topped up with large gaps between actual and optimal culture, sequencing change activities is the prudent thing to do. In such cases, building trust and decreasing anxiety takes priority over other issues.

It can be opportune to sequence change activities at a later stage, when relevant new information has popped up. Sometimes, so many discrepancies surface which the client wants address, that an order of priority needs to be established:  the burden would be too heavy if everything is dealt with simultaneously.

Step 1.7        Handling logistics

If the whole scanning process is limited to 1 to 3 separate groups, logistics will not require a big effort. Obviously, with an increase in groups, logistics becomes more complex.

An organizational audit consists of 3 consecutive workshops. If 20 groups are to be scanned,  40 - 60 workshops need to be organized. On top of that, discussions with relevant managers about the content of reports prior to conducting workshop 2 and discussions about change strategies, will complicate logistics.

It is highly recommendable to appoint one person (or if complexity increases, a steering committee) who takes responsibility for logistics. The role of this person or steering committee consists of:

Providing relevant information about respondents to facilitate the data collection;

Micro-planning;

Communication about the whole process, so that everybody is aware of the intentions of management and respondents know what is required from them and when.

Ideally,  the name of the steering committee should not include the word “culture”. The whole exercise is about optimization. A name such as “steering committee on optimization”  will be much better a label than “culture project team”. In the case of mergers and acquisitions, one does not normally start with optimization but with integration - something which may be made explicit through the name given to the steering committee concerned; see section 6.3

Step 1.8        Successful monitoring of the process

The steering committee handling logistics may not always have enough clout to get the project running timely  and successfully . To remind busy and powerful top and senior executives of their contribution to the change process, is not easy and often ungrateful.  

One solution is to include the executive secretary or PA of the CEO in the steering committee to facilitate logistics. But to make things really up and running, the CEO needs to be visibly involved.  Obviously, the CEO does not have time to micromanage the logistical process. That should be delegated to others, who have received a clear mandate and enough ‘clout’ and who brief the CEO regularly on the progress of the project.

Step 1.9        Get involvement from top

Top management should be and remains responsible for formulation and realization of objectives, strategy and culture. It is advisable to involve others who know how to translate the objectives into tangible day-to-day activities, but top executives have to give their  consent to functional diversity and change initiatives. They have the overview of what they want to realize, so they can endorse functional diversity and validate change initiatives against realizing objectives. In other words, top management should take up its responsibility to adjust optimal positions and to adjust change initiatives where needed,  in collaboration with the steering committee and external consultants.

Without full commitment of top management it will be very hard, if not impossible, to realize change successfully. It is important to ensure that top management has the right perspective of what is expected of them:

First of all, they have to be change leaders. This role will certainly apply to themselves if there is a need to change their own subculture. It also applies at least to that part of the culture which will unify all employees being normally covered by the optimal positions chosen on dimensions D2; Internally versus externally directed, D4; Local versus professional, D6; employee versus work oriented and D8; identification with the organization, as will be explained later.

Top management is and should remain responsible for formulation and realization of objectives, strategy and culture. In the case of subcultures characterized by functional diversity, it is advisable to involve those who know what is required in order to translate the objectives into tasks and day-to-day activities. Still, top management should be aware that they will have to give their approval to functional diversity and to change initiatives. Given that top management has an overall view of what they want to realize, they have to check whether functional diversity between different groups makes sense and whether change initiatives will indeed facilitate realization of objectives. In other words, top management should be able to change certain optimal positions and to adjust change initiatives, if so desired, in discussion with the steering committee and external consultants.

Step 1.10        Involving internal consultants to increase participation and support

Internal consultants can do part of the work. Whether this is feasible depends on:

Number of workshops. The client will not get value for money if internal consultants are trained to do only a couple of workshops. Internal consultants can especially be used to conduct Workshops 3, in which ideally as many people as possible participate. Workshop 3 does not require deep know-how on culture, it can easily be transferred to internal consultants. Internal consultants should never conduct workshops for people higher up in the hierarchy than they are positioned themselves.

Qualification of internal consultants are: They should be able to quickly gain trust, have experience in running very interactive workshops with a fair number of participants and have reference power. Moreover, they should have the time or they should be allowed to make additional time available to run such workshops.

Step 1.11            Exceptions to the rule

We repeat once again, when talking about culture: “Never say never and never say always”. Life is too complex to know and to be aware of everything in this respect. The same applies to the change process. One should always be willing to deviate from the preferred approach. Normally, it does not make sense to limit our approach to a measurement of the actual culture, without defining the optimal culture, or the other way around by assessing the optimal culture without scanning actual culture.

Suppose a client wants us to scan only its actual culture without an assessment of its optimal culture. In such a case we cannot automatically generate a report and the added value of the measurement will be restricted. If then a client wanted us to do so nevertheless, we will go ahead. The only thing we could then do is to present the actual scores in the model in a neat way as is shown in Annex 9. One way to wet their appetite for more is to ask them how they think  they score before presenting the actual scores. Only in this case, the manager director was so defensive that he stopped the process all together and only after a number of years did he start moving.

If the client is not too defensive and if there is enough time, it can be a good idea to ask top management during Workshop 1 how they think  they score.

Limiting an assignment to assessing the optimal culture only is not advisable either, unless:

The client insists on it, even after you explained that this is not very helpful.

The client thinks for good reasons that it knows its culture fairly well, in view of data collections that took place over the past years, whether labor satisfaction or culture surveys.

The client wants us to conduct management assessments through our Executive Match, (section 5.3.6). In that case optimal scores indeed suffice.

5.3.2        Step 2: Data collection

Note that f rom this Step 2 onwards, we will present for each step:

A concise overview of the required input and the generated output.

A chart with the activities for this particular step.  A number in the left hand column indicates that this activity is described further on. If there is no number it is assumed that the activity is self-explanatory.

Also not that step 2 is characterized by two different on-line data collection processes:

Step 2a: Data collection to measure actual (sub)culture(s) plus work paradise

Step 2b: Data collection to define strategic windows

Step 2a requires a significant number of respondents to ensure a reliable picture of the culture of a client.

Step 2b requires only a chosen few who define the environment in which the culture is embedded in order to define the strategic windows of the 6 autonomous dimensions. The strategic windows facilitate  the assessment of the optimal culture during Workshop 1. The optimal score should normally lie in the area between the two normative windows. In the example of Diagram 49 below the strategic window runs from 35 to 80.

Diagram 49

Step 2a: Data collection to measure actual culture and work paradise

Step 2.1        Introduction

[4]

Chart 4

Step 2.2        Sample or all inclusive

The bulk of data collection is done online. For additional data collection in other ways, see Annex 3.

The number of respondents is discussed in  section 5.3.1, step 1.3. Here we focus on whether all employees should complete the online survey or just a sample. This depends in large part on the time people have available. It is logical that management does not want staff to spend a lot of time on activities that fall outside their core tasks.  It takes about 20 to 30 minutes to complete the online questionnaire. For that reason clients frequently prefer a sample, that is, if more than 35 people are working there.

To obtain a proper sample, respondents should be chosen ad-random. For example, by listing them in alphabetical order and select every third person. There are many more ways, to create an ad-random sample. The only strict requirement is that the selection should not be based on the assumption that some will give more positive answers than others for which reason those with a more positive attitude towards the employer will be chosen. Some clients, though, prefer an all-inclusive approach, so that nobody has the felling to be left out during the data collection.

A concern that frequently pops up is the time it takes to conduct the data collection process. As the survey and reporting are done digitally, the bottle neck lies more with the client then with us. To be on the safe side we plan in a fortnight, although technically it is no problem to collect the data within a couple of days. The bottleneck on the client’s side is the time needed to induce all respondents to complete the survey.

Step 2.3   Firewall and spam box

To ensure anonymity respondents receive the invitation and the reminder to participate in the data collection from an e-mail address unknown to their organization’s system. It would not be the first time if the messages end up in the spam box or are blocked by a firewall. For that reason, a test message is sent to the counterpart to see whether the firewall has to be adjusted for this particular email address.

Step 2.4   Uploading respondents

Uploading respondents can take a fair amount of time and scrutiny, particularly if it is a large assignment and respondents belong to several groups. Just to give an example, we measured once over 50 groups within one division of a multinational that was 24/7 in operation. Several respondents had to be allocated to different hierarchical levels and work shifts. No errors should be made to ensure that the answers were correctly uploaded.

Step 2b: Data collection to define strategic windows

2.5        Introduction  

Contrary to many consultants, we state that we cannot know which culture best serves a client. In other words, the client has to define its optimal culture before the functionality of its actual culture can be reviewed. It is quite a challenge for management to assess their optimal culture adequately, certainly when the Model on Strategy, Culture and Change is not yet part of their body of know-how.

To assist clients in assessing their optimal culture, we developed  two types of normative windows, by which the area in which they have to position the optimal scores doesn’t any longer run from 0 to 100 but to a fairly to very smaller area.  The area in between these normative windows is called the strategic window in which the client should position its optimal culture.

Internal normative windows  have a fixed size. Actual scores within an internal normative window are in general dysfunctional.

External normative windows have a flexible   size depending on the environment in which the culture is embedded. The influence of the environment on the organization’s culture can be mapped by  the questionnaire on bonding (QoB) and the questionnaire on functional diversity (QoFD).

Questionnaire on bonding (QoB)

The questionnaire on bonding covers the dimensions internally versus externally driven (D2), local versus professional (D4) and employee versus work oriented (D6). Irrespective of subcultures, no differentiation is required on these three dimensions.  The same goes for identification with the organization (D8): on these four dimensions, the culture should be normally similar throughout the organization.

No questions that relate to the acceptance of the leadership style (D7) and D8, are included in the QoB. Where it concerns acceptance of leadership style, it is not the manager who defines its position, but rather the preferences of respondents. In the case of D8, management normally wants people to identify strongly with the organization.

In some (rare) instances when the client operates in a particular context,  it might be good to differentiate one or more of these four  dimensions (D2, D4, D6 and D8). Yet, the golden rule is that a culture that is similar throughout the organization on these four aspects facilitates smoother and more effective communication and cooperation.

Questionnaire on functional diversity (QoFD)

The questionnaire on functional diversity covers the dimensions means vs goal orientation (D1), easy-going vs strict work discipline (D3) and open vs closed (D5). Although it is good to have consistency across the organization, different work requirements in particular may demand functional diversity between different groups.

Chart 5

Step 2.6        Who completes which questionnaire?

Only one person needs to complete the Questionnaire on Bonding (QoB): the highest in rank  of the organization. A helicopter view is needed to answer these factual questions which cover the entire organization.

The Questionnaire on Functional Diversity (QoFD) should be completed by the highest in rank of each group whose subculture will be measured.

To reiterate,  the QoB will be filled out once, whereas the QoFD should be filled out for every  group that will be measured separately. It is, however, completely up to these managers whether they choose to involve others to answer these rather factual questions.

Step 2.7        Avoid confusion

If the management team is large enough, its subculture should be defined separately. In that case, the CEO fills out the questionnaire on functional diversity (QoFD) for the top management team, the questionnaire on bonding (QoB)  for the whole organization and probably also the surveys on the actual and desired culture. A CEO who is not properly informed beforehand, may object to completing 3 to 4 surveys as he is most likely already incredibly busy.

To a lesser extent this also applies to division managers. They have to fill out the surveys on actual and desired culture in addition to the QoFD.

Differences between data collection process 2a and 2b

The most important differences between the questionnaire to measure culture and the questionnaires on bonding and functional diversity to define strategic windows  are:

The number of respondents asked to participate. In the case of a culture scan, at least a representative sample should participate – if the realization of intersubjectivity is to be ensured. “Intersubjectivity” means that a survey has been constructed in such a way that with the input of subjective respondents (everybody is subjective) objective reality is constructed as closely as possible. A minimum number of respondents is required for this. In the case of the QoB and QoFD one respondent suffices.

The type of questions are quite different. In the culture scan, answers to questions scan the way respondents relate to their work, to each other and to the outside world. They are phrased in such a way that socially desirable answers are avoided as much as possible. The QoB and the QoFD contain factual questions and are therefore as explicit as possible. They include questions such as ‘how many people work  here?’

In diagram 50 we see an organization where no subcultures are measured. The QoB and QoFD are sent only to the CEO to be answered by him.

Diagram 50

In diagram 51 the CEO completes the QoB for the whole organization and the QoFD if the subculture of his management team will be measured separately. Moreover, also the subcultures of the Front Office, the Back Office and Production are measured separately. Sso the managers in charge complete the QoFD for their own department.

Diagram 51

5.3.3        Step 3: Workshop 1 – Assessing optimal scores

Step 3.1        Introduction

As top management has to define the shared part of the optimal culture (D2, D4 and D6), we distinguish here between Workshop 1 for the management team and for all other groups.

There are three possibilities:

No distinction is made between subcultures. Then top management also defines the optimal positions on D1, D3 and D5.

The subculture of top management is measured separately. Then top management defines the optimal positions on D1, D3 and D5 for its own group. Ideally management of each subculture defines its optimal subculture and forwards it to top management to check the optimal fit with its strategy.

The management team is too small to be measured separately, or doesn’t want to measure its subculture. Then top management only defines the positions on D2, D4 and D6 for the whole organization. Ideally management of each subculture defines its optimal subculture and forwards it to top management to check the optimal fit with its strategy.

For top management and for others a separate overview of workshop 1 is presented below. Aspects which are the same for both types of workshop 1 are explained under the heading: “Generic issues applying to all groups” at the end of section 5.3.3

Step 3.a        Workshop 1 for top management

Chart 6 overview of activities

Step 3.2        Workshop 1 – Assessment of optimal scores by top management

If the management team (MT) is large enough, we strongly recommend to include them to obtain their buy-in and generate feedback which supports the MT to become more effective.

It only makes sense to assess the optimal culture of the MT if its actual subculture has been scanned. If so, only three dimensions are tabled: means versus goal oriented (D1), easy-going versus strict work discipline (D3) and open versus closed system (D5).  These are the dimensions on which functional diversity can be created. The MT also assesses the optimal positions for the entire organization for that part of the culture that should be shared throughout the organization and relate to bonding: D2, D4 and D6.

Step 3.3        Discuss participation

Sometimes it is beneficial to invite others who are in close contact with the MT to participate in the measurement. For example, when the MT is too small or when these others can contribute with valuable insights. Such people should have a helicopter view and a high level of education to be able to contribute meaningfully and they should be absolutely trustworthy. We discourage inviting “outsiders” to this workshop if there is friction on the MT or strong disagreement about the course of action. Then “outsiders” may block generating and accepting creative solutions.

The more people attend, the livelier the discussion, though for the best results, the group should ideally not comprise more than 18 people.

Step 3.4        Discuss program,  options, and time required

Top managers tend to allot too little time to this workshop. They are usually extremely busy and think that they cannot spend too much time on “culture”, which is, to many of them, “soft” and unrelated to business.

It is true that top managers often lack time, but culture is about their core business. It is a crucial factor in success or failure. Hofstede’s research shows a clear correlation between managers who claim that they only rely on hard facts and a means oriented culture (D1). Such managers are often impatient, lose their temper easily and want to show that they are in control although they are not. Their attitude certainly does not contribute to a goal oriented culture. Last but not least, they do not like to be contradicted and at times, prefer cronies over critical colleagues, which pushes the culture into a local direction (D4). Top managers who claim that they are only interested in hard facts and not in fluffy things as culture are often the most emotional ones. By the way, if people were devoid of emotions, then culture would not matter.

A minimum of 2 hours is required to assess the optimal positions on the six dimensions. Considering the importance of the topic, 4 hours yield the best results. Ideally, the CEO gives a short introduction and then the external consultant facilitates the workshop. During the one-hour introduction, culture and its implications are defined, strategic windows explained and the follow-up after the workshop is discussed. This takes 30 minutes to 1 hour.

To assess each dimension, a time slot of 15-30 minutes is reserved. The consultant explains each dimension allowing the participants to assess and discuss an optimal position in numbers; for instance, “We want to be pretty goal oriented on D1 with a score of 80”.

If the discussion is plenary, 15 minutes per dimension suffices. If discussions take place in small work groups, around 30 minutes is required. Small group discussions prior to a plenary discussion have the advantage of eliciting more information on which sound assessments can be made.

Additional options to choose from, which normally takes more time, are:

Supplying the participants with the vision, mission, core values and main  policies, if available, to be used explicitly as input

After the optimal score has been assessed it is compared per dimension with the actual score. This may lead to more discussion but has our preference so that those participating get a first insight about the degree of functionality of their (sub-)culture..

The introduction may be more extensive to include also some nice ice-breakers.

The dimensions are pretty abstract at first sight. It is therefore important to give enough real life examples to bring these dimensions  alive. The amount of time to be spent on explaining these dimensions will depend on the amount of time made available, but also on the nature of the audience. Americans, on average, cannot wait until they are “allowed” to do something, whereas e.g. the French, on average, first want to get the whole theory before being able to start acting.

Step 3.5        Plan workshop

To comply with the tight schedule of the workshop, it is important to have a detailed program and someone who serves as timekeeper. We once conducted this workshop with 17 participants of the leadership of a multinational. The CEO did not want to participate, but we were able to convince him to participate and it turned out that he was willing to conduct the workshop together with us. This worked out so well that this set-up became our preferred approach since. In order to make this to a success, the CEO should be offered this option and if he accepts it he should be briefed thoroughly. If members of the management team are located far apart it is not always easy to get them to meet physically. In that case we plan workshop 1 and 2 around one of their regular meetings.

Step 3.6        Create/adjust work documents

The input for workshop 1 are the strategic windows. These are generated on the basis of the answers given to the  QoB and the QoFD, which describe the environment in which the(sub)culture is embedded.

Diagram 52 serves as an aide de memoire of the similar diagram 49 in section 5.3.2, Step 2.

Diagram 52

Step 3.7                   How to conduct workshop 1 for top management

In general, we do not reveal the actual scores until the optimal scores have been assessed,  to allow the participants to view at the situation with an open mind. Sometimes, notably in countries with a high Uncertainty Avoidance Index, management teams feel insecure and insist on receiving the actual scores prior to setting the optimal scores. If that is the case, we go along, of course.  

Different work teams

A decent number of participants increases the liveliness and sharpens the discussion around the optimal positions. If there are over 6 participants, they can be grouped into functional work teams of at least 3 persons. The optimal scores of the different work teams are then compared. If the teams deviate from each other by more than 20 points, the consultant invites the work teams with the highest and lowest score to explain their position and try to win over the other teams. In order to prevent this activity from turning into a competition, it should be made clear that a change of position is a sign of strength, not of weakness.

If managers cannot agree among themselves, the external consultant can come up with an average score, but (s)he should feel free to side with the arguments of one work team more than with another .  Check then whether participants agree with the choice you make on their behalf. If they still cannot agree - and if the CEO does not intervene – the consultant may want to stick to his/her choice.

Some managers can become too committed to their score. The role of the consultant is then to explain the relativity of the selected scores.  

The managers should remain flexible enough to change optimal positions after having read the report on the actual culture – either prior to or during workshop 2.   If the CEO does not  take part in the optimal assessment, but leads the discussion with the external consultant,  the CEO can more easily break a deadlock if required.

In order to manage this workshop well, each dimension with its strategic windows is presented on a flip chart, so that the optimal positions of the work teams can be easily inserted. See Diagram 53 below.

Diagram 53

In this example the largest difference is between work team (1) and (2). Spokespersons from team 1 and 2 are invited to convince the other two teams of the validity of their position.

It is a good sign if the optimal positions of the different teams are very close. It implies that the strategic intent of the top management team is strong, as the teams have already implicitly translated their objectives and strategies in cultural terms similarly.

Normative windows

The normative windows guide the client to assess its position properly, by limiting the size of the strategic window in which the optimal score should be positioned. The internal normative window is supposedly a no-go area. “Supposedly”, because remember: Never to say “never”  and never “always ”. But, during the thirty years during which we have worked with our approach, no client has ever positioned its optimal scores inside these internal normative windows.

The external normative windows, on the other hand, are not prescriptive. A good discussion may reveal reasons to position optimal scores inside these external normative windows.

The width of external normative windows is determined by the answers by top and/or senior managers on the QoB and QoFD. Other participants may find reasons to move away from the strategic window, into the external normative window. It may be that participants disagree with the answers the senior executive provided to the QoB and the QoFD.  But even if they agree with the answers, they may have compelling reasons to assume that part of the context in which the culture is embedded can be changed or does not really matter.  

This does not only give depth to the discussion, but shows the extent to which  strategy, context and culture are linked.

Step 3.8        Reports are generated

Reports, in which the results of the scans on the actual culture have been fed,  are automatically generated after the consultant has uploaded the optimal scores. These reports form the input for workshop 2. It is therefore convenient to have a time lapse of at least 24 hours  between workshop 1 and workshop 2.

Report generation itself is a matter of minutes, but the consultant (s) should check the report(s) to ensure that no errors have been made, before they are made available to clients.

Step 3.b        Workshop 1 for other groups

Chart 7 gives an overview of the activities that can be conducted for other groups.

Chart 7

Step 3.9        Discuss with steering committee participation in workshop 1

The greater the number of units scanned, the more intricate the planning. If there is a steering committee, the consultant can take up the logistics of workshop 1 with it.  If there is not, someone else inside the client organization needs to be made in charge of logistics.

For each unit, those highest in rank should ideally participate in workshop 1, since culture becomes useful when matched with strategic requirements. In defining optimal culture, the question is not whether people will be happy with the optimal culture, but rather whether it will help to realize the objectives of the organization in the best possible way. Surely these two can coincide: happy people and achieving objectives, for example when one of the objectives is to become “the employer of choice”.

The highest in rank of a group that has been scanned separately, should decide who will participate in workshop 1. Such a decision may depend on:

The content of the actual culture in relation to the actual management style;

The management style that top or divisional management wants to establish;

Capabilities of the potential participants.

The actual culture drives - to a degree - people’s actions. If the manager of a certain group keeps everything close to his chest, fewer colleagues will be invited than if the manager has a consultative management style.

If so far the dominant management style has been paternalistic and it has been decided to change this towards a more consultative style, it would be good to invite more people, as a token of this new commitment.

To capture such an extremely complex system like an organization in a model, the model cannot be simple. That means that our process is rather abstract at the start, but rapidly becomes more concrete. Clients do not need to despair when Workshop 1 has been perceived as rather abstract, because each consecutive workshop will be more tangible and down-to-earth.

Participants of Workshop 1 should meet the following requirements:

A high level of education or the ability to think conceptually. Although workshop 2 is less conceptual, it is recommended that the same people attend workshop 1 and 2 to ensure a continuation of know-how and understanding;

A clear idea about the position and contribution of their group to the total  organization;

Interested in more than just their personal task execution.

If the division manager does not want to invite anybody who reports to him although there are members on his/her team who meet all three qualifications, it is good to point out that involving staff will push the culture to a more employee orientation direction (D6), certainly if that is what the management team aspires.

Steps 3.10/3.11        Discuss program, options and time required/Plan workshop

Similar actions as described for Workshop 1 for the top management team, apply for divisional subcultures. Some of the differences are:

On average, the lower echelons need more time than top management to understand the dimensions and to come up with optimal scores. If there is not enough time, we recommend to assess only the optimal scores on means versus goal oriented (D1), easy-going versus tight work discipline (D3) and open versus closed (D5).

The other three dimensions which deal with bonding, should be the same throughout the organization and might have been assessed by top management already. Yet, it can be beneficial under certain circumstances, to ask others to assess the optimal culture on the dimensions on bonding as well.

It may be that the particular situation of the client demands functional diversity on the dimensions on bonding. Then it is good if not only top management, but also the departments asses the optimal positions on the dimensions on bonding. Take the police: police officers at the criminal investigation department normally score local – and that’s hard to change. Support sections within that same department can score more professional. Then it is wise to ask the sector leader who is leading these diverse units to fill out the QoB as well.

Top management may want more people and groups to feel involved and committed and ask them to their ideas on the optimal scores on the dimensions on bonding. Perspectives from all sides usually help in obtaining a better picture of the optimal culture. Of course, this only works if participants can make sufficient time available.

Step 3.11        Create/adjust work documents

This process is similar as described for top management; see step 3.6.

Step 3.12        Conduct workshop

Here also, we can follow the same process as described  for top management in step 3.7.

Normally the groups below top management that participate in workshop 1 are larger, and more work teams can be created, which promotes the quality of the discussion.

Step 3.13        Green light from top management

Top management should never delegate its final responsibility for vision, mission, goals and strategies nor its final responsibility in defining the optimal culture.

Ideally, top management should not just know the optimal positions chosen by other groups, but they should also verify these positions against the overall picture of how objectives and strategies have to be met. They also have to give their blessing to the degree of functional diversity proposed by other groups on D1, D3 and D5.

If other groups are also asked to assess the optimal positions on the dimensions on bonding, top management certainly has to be involved. If other groups disagree with the choices made by top management about the optimal culture on D2; internally versus externally driven, D4; local versus professional and D6; employee versus work oriented, a meaningful discussion may take place between management of the groups concerned and top management. The result of such a discussion can be the following:

Nothing changes, as management of the groups concerned were not able to convince top management that one or more positions should be changed on D2, D4 or D6.

Top management agrees that one or more optimal scores should be adjusted

If the client organization is very large and comprises many departments and subsidiaries in many different countries, then top management cannot and should not try to have discussions with all groups concerned. It should then at least do this exercise with the management layer reporting to them as well as with the functional group(s) for which each top manager separately is responsible. They should then delegate the rest of this process to their direct reports.

Generic issues applying to all groups

The two semi-autonomous dimensions

You may have noted that the QoB and the QoFD do not cover the two semi-autonomous dimensions D7 (acceptance of leadership style) and D8 (identification with the organization). That is because these two are normative by nature. The higher the scores on these two dimensions the better.

The environment of a company has little or no direct influence on the acceptance of leadership style by the employees. This dimension compares the respondents’ preferences for a certain leadership style with the leadership style of their direct boss as they perceive it. Preferences for a certain leadership style are generally rooted in national cultural value patterns and are therefore difficult, if not impossible, to change. For that reason is does not make sense for the client to assess the optimal score for D7. Instead, the respondents’ preferences are leading.

Whether people identify with the organization, is not so much influenced by the environment, but rather by how proud and happy they are with their employer. We have set the optimal score on D8 at 75. It is always good if members of an organization identify strongly with their organization, unless management wants a faster staff turnover. As a side note,  D8 belongs to the group of dimensions on bonding.

Do’s and don’ts

Below are some important do’s and don’ts to bear in mind when conducting workshop 1:

Make sure that the dimensions are clearly explained so that it is easy for participants to come up with meaningful optimal scores. The participants may never before have heard of “The Hofstede Model on Strategy, Culture and Change”. Thus, it happens regularly that although clients analyze their work situation correctly, they come to the wrong conclusions when translating their observations in terms of the model . Think of the earlier example of the MD who wrongly concluded that his mechanics were too customer friendly. Their culture was too sloppy on D3, rather than too customer friendly on D2. This happens more often.

Realize how important it is to analyze one’s situation to come up with optimal scores before seeing the actual scores measured, unless the client overrules you.

Those attending this first workshop should not become too committed to the optimal scores chosen. They should remain flexible enough to change optimal positions both during workshop 1 and also during workshop 2 - after having read the report.

Sometimes participants complain that the discussion remains rather abstract and that what they are doing is not connected to their real-life work situation. Tell them then that Workshop 2 will be much more practical and that Workshop 3 will be fully hands-on.

Sometimes participants use arguments which do not belong to the dimension under discussion, but to a different one. You can tell them that this regards a dimension still to be explained. If this happens often, participants may get irritated and think that the external consultant is trying to influence the discussion.  It can be helpful to explain that in order to make optimal use of the time to explain such a complex model, the model is revealed in stages, rather than in one draw.

5.3.4        Step 4: Workshop 2 – Discussion of report and follow-up

Step 4.1        Introduction

[5]                                                                                                            

Chart 8 gives an overview of the activities which clients and consultants may want to cover in workshop 2.

Chart 8

Step 4.2        Is a preliminary discussion with the manager advisable?

We always ask the manager of a group that has been scanned whether (s)he wants to read the report before we send it out to his/her staff. Frequently the manager comments : ”that’s fine, no need for me to check it,  I’ve got nothing to hide”.  And in general it’s not an issue. But on occasions, it may be wise to discuss the report with the manager concerned prior to sending it to the whole team. If the group is only managed by one person and if information about that manager may be detrimental it is wise to discuss the report with him prior to making it available to his colleagues. But even if the report contains only good news, it helps to have pre-information so that the manager can decide if and how to run Workshop 2 together with the consultant.

Step 4.2        Follow-up: Optional step - Discussion with the manager

The consultant should not be over-cautious. A manager who cannot cope with critical remarks may not be the right one for the job. Yet, if the information is really detrimental to the manager,  it may be hard for him/her to redress behavior of his team members.

It’s not always possible nor advisable to replace a manager immediately  because he did a poor job in cultural terms:

Perhaps top management does not have enough political clout to dismiss that manager, notably if it concerns the CEO.

The manager has specific know-how or contributes in other ways which makes him indispensable -  at least for the time being.

There may be much scope for improvement considering the environment of the operations and the personality of the manager.

Step 4.2        Omitting certain findings

Should information that can damage a manager, be deleted from the report? Sometimes yes, provided the manager accepts coaching . An external consultant can and should  propose coaching as a condition to remove information. After all, not outsiders but the manager’s own colleagues described his dysfunctional  behavior and attitudes.

Never, however, should the content of the report be changed. This ought to be part of the ethical code of consultants, but omitting text to ensure that people are not harmed and to facilitate the change process, is admissible.

Step 4.3          Discuss participation in workshop 2 and distribution of report to participants

Those who have participated in workshop 1 will usually also participate in workshop 2. But it is important to check whether this is what the client wants. One of the questions to the client is whether participants should be asked to read the report prior to attending this second workshop. Despite the fact that the main body of the report contains a maximum of only 20 pages, most managers are so busy that they do not give themselves sufficient time to read such a report thoroughly, if at all. Another consideration which may stop them from reading it is doubt about the usefulness of culture. If the assignee cannot guarantee that all participants will have read the report prior to workshop 2, it may be decided to distribute the report only after workshop 2 has been conducted. The main findings in the report are then presented in such a way that it is easy to take the participants through the report during the workshop.

Lack of time to read the report prior to the second workshop is an even more acute problem for an international leadership team. As it is not always easy to get the members of an international leadership team together, it makes sense to organize the first two workshops during the same conference. This is only feasible if the second workshop will not be conducted immediately after the first workshop. Time is needed to input the optimal positions defined during the first workshop into the system and to generate the reports. Following this, the main findings of the report have to be inserted into a powerpoint presentation in order to conduct the second workshop. This will normally not pose any problems, as leadership teams have many other things to discuss once they have come together. At the beginning of the process, members of the leadership team wonder why so much time has set apart for culture instead of discussing their business issues as much as possible. Their amazement normally dissipates during workshop 2, when they notice that our approach in addressing culture covers many of their business preoccupations.

In general we can say the following about distribution of reports:

Decide in discussion with the client which information will be distributed how. Perhaps the easiest way to distribute the information is by emailing the report concerned to all workshop participants. Allow for the option that participants only be confronted with the major findings during workshop 2. Another possibility is that participants receive the highlights of the report prior to the workshop only or during the workshop. The various options depend on the workload of participants, their ability to digest a lot of information, sequencing of change activities and timing.

Step 4.4        Make sure the report is printed in color

Irrespective of whether the report is distributed prior to workshop 2 or afterwards, it is important to inform the client that the report that is made available as soft copy be printed in color.  This of course applies only if the client wishes to distribute the report in paper format.

It is essential to stress this minor point, because - in order to keep the report as concise as possible - a significant amount of information is contained in the color coding with which results are presented.

Step 4.5        Conduct workshop 2 and discuss communication

Objectives of workshop 2 are :

Find out whether there are any surprises. Do participants agree with the findings and do they need an explanation?

Ask the client for an explanation if the external consultant has found things that surprise him and therefore need explanation.

Highlight the most important findings of the report, if not already covered.

Ensure that a final assessment of the optimal scores is made.

Make choices from the diagrams with asterisks, if presented in the report.

Discuss follow-up.

These topics are elaborated below:

Find out whether there are any surprises. Do participants agree with the findings and do they need an explanation?

Participants strongly opposing findings in the report, should not give cause for concern. Firstly, it is impossible that all intricacies of work reality at group level can be unveiled with the help of a model. Secondly, our experience until now has been that opposition and contradictory information in the report unveil deeper levels of work reality, giving more insight into the particular situation the client finds itself in. After all, all findings in a report are based on answers given by respondents who work in the client system.                                                                                                                                            If opposition from one or more participants is very strong, this may indicate that the report has encroached on a taboo. Taboos are more likely to be found when management tries to suppress certain aspects of work reality. This can happen e.g. when management embraces core values which are not intended to reflect the new work reality, but instead try to cover up part of work reality. Such strong opposition can also reflect attitudes of individual managers who cannot cope with criticism.

More in general, information about culture that first appears to be false, counterintuitive or contradictory often points to deeper levels of work reality. It is our experience that in all those situations in which findings in the report were very much questioned or opposed, led to the client better understanding of their own work reality. In thirty years of work experience, we have only come across two cases of top management rejecting the findings. In both cases almost all other colleagues of top management supported the findings but were overruled. We then stopped the assignment.

b.        Ask the client for an explanation if the external consultant has found things that surprise him and therefore need explanation

The number of different reports that can be generated by the software is enormous. Some differences may be very small, e.g. a difference between “very strong” or “strong”. Some differences may unveil a unique characteristic not previously found.

In order to do so, external consultants need a lot of experience to know what are common findings and what are exceptional findings. It is also possible to find contradictions not encountered before, or which seem to be counterintuitive. In all these cases please invite participants to explain such information.

It is possible that some findings are so unheard of that one may want to check whether errors have been made by the report generating software. If no reporting errors have been made and if the client is not able to explain such findings, the client may be advised to let the external consultant collect additional data. The quickest way to do this is by carrying out a number of in-depth interviews. These interviews can be short, as the questions will be limited just to those topics which will supply focused information about the issues at hand.

c.         Highlight the most important findings of the report, if not already covered

The external consultant should highlight the most important findings - in as far as they have not yet been covered during the discussions mentioned under points a. and b. above. In reality the activities listed here under the letters a. b. and c. are not put in any specific sequence. One normally starts with c. - but be prepared for emotions to run so high that the group may, for example, want to jump to contradictory information first in order to check whether the reporting and the consultant are credible. There is often time pressure. It is then hard to get sufficient time to discuss the report extensively as well as meet all objectives of the second workshop. In that case, it is wise to leave out a discussion about the results of the measurement of the work paradise here - if it has been measured. This can then be discussed at a later stage.

The following applies to work paradise: the more statements and the more asterisks there are in the table regarding their work paradise, the more reason there is to conduct a follow-up discussion. For follow-up see below.

d.        Ensure that a final assessment of the optimal scores is made

We have often experienced that once the optimal scores have been defined during the first workshop, participants want to leave them as they are. Nevertheless, it is important to ask participants to reconsider the optimal scores seriously for the following reasons:

During the first workshop participants are asked to translate their work reality in terms of a model which may be totally new to them. It is therefore self-evident that participants may find good reasons to reconsider one or more optimal scores once they have read the report, or once the main findings have been highlighted.

If participants do not see any reason to change any of the optimal positions, but the external consultants do see reason to do so in a particular case, then the external consultants should express themselves tentatively. After all, external consultants should be cautious when expressing their own opinion. They do not work within the client system and therefore cannot know all the ‘ins and outs’. However, we do know the model much better than the client and can therefore oversee the consequences of certain optimal positions better.

Remember in this respect that a difference of fewer than 10 points is not a notable difference. Therefore, small changes in optimal positions will have no impact. If it is decided that one or more optimal positions should be adjusted by 10 points or more, then it may be advisable to generate a new report. In that case the choices made as indicated below should be tentative and be reconsidered after the new report has been generated and read.

e.        Make choices from the diagrams with asterisks

If no diagrams with asterisks appear in the report and if no salient additional information is presented, then no follow-up action is required. If discrepancies between actual and optimal scores on one or more dimensions are 15 points or more, then diagrams with asterisks are presented. These diagrams contain characteristics which describe the biggest discrepancies between the actual and optimal scores on a more detailed level and in order of priority. Participants are then asked to choose those characteristics they would like to change in order to realize the optimal culture, see example below.

Diagram 54

They are not obliged to do this. Even if a report indicates that improvements can be realized by changing the culture, a client may decide not to go ahead.

We have been often asked how these asterisks are calculated. This is done by comparing the actual scores of separate answers per question with the optimal score on a dimension defined by a client . Note that the answers loading the actual score on a dimension should cluster together, otherwise no dimensions could have been identified in a meaningful way. This, however is true for the overall data bank but not necessarily for a separate measurement. The less answers cluster together around the average actual score on a dimension, the more it shows particular characteristics of the culture of a client on that dimension.

If a client wants to proceed with the culture change process, the diagram with asterisks is a great help to set priorities and find out where resistance to change can be expected.

Four asterisks indicate where change can have the largest impact. In diagram 54, changing the emphasis from maintaining safety to fostering an entrepreneurial spirit will have the largest impact on bridging the gap between the actual and optimal position on D1 (means versus goal orientation). In this particular case, management rightly decided to emphasize entrepreneurship, since safety was not an issue at their work. One asterisk indicates that the difference is small, yet it pays off if also in that case this characteristic will be changed.

The five average answers in Diagram 54 would have loaded the actual score on this dimension with respectively 20, 40, 60, 65 and 70, compared with an optimal score for this dimension of 85. The asterisks do not give precise numbers, as it is not about mathematics, but about change strategy.

It is not necessary to work on all characteristics features simultaneously to bridge the gap between actual and optimal scores. As a rule of thumb, the client selects two features per dimension in order to bring about change. The selection should take into account what is feasible and attainable. The selected characteristics can be put in the change initiatives “basket”.

f.        Discuss follow-up

During or following Workshop 2 certain issues should be addressed:

If not all topics were covered during this workshop, how and when to continue?  

Who will be informed about the results of the report - and to what extent?

If optimal scores have been adjusted, should a new report be generated? This will affect the selected characteristics to be acted upon, from the diagrams with the asterisks.

Step 4.6        Arrange a follow-up workshop 2 with top management

If subcultures are measured, a consolidated report is generated next to the reports on the subcultures. The consolidated report does not just compile the results of the subcultures, but also highlights any remarkable (dysfunctional) differences between the subcultures.

Workshop 1 and 2 are held for each group of which its subculture has been measured separately. Management of each group defines its optimal scores, with or without other staff members. These optimal scores are presented to top management who verifies them against the overall strategy and the desired functional diversity.  In other words, the CEO or the top management team takes responsibility to  accept or (partially) reject the optimal subcultures defined by lower levels.

The consolidated report may induce top management to reconsider certain optimal positions. If they reject or question certain optimal positions, it should be taken up with the managers of those subcultures. When all are in the clear, the final optimal positions can be defined and selected actions from the diagrams with asterisk may need to be adjusted. (Note that these optimal scores should not be carved in stone. Important changes in the environment or a change in vision, mission and objectives may require adjustment in this respect)

Some of the topics that can be discussed during this follow-up workshop are:

New information in the consolidated report may lead top management to add or cancel activities to the change initiatives “basket”.

The overview of strengths and weaknesses within the organization gives hands and feet to top management to steer change initiatives in a focused way.

Should the functional diversity as proposed by the subcultures, be accepted or should certain optimal positions change to create a stronger culture?

Should the proposals on the bonding dimensions (D2, D4, D6 and D8) that subcultures tabled when asked for their opinion be accepted or rejected?

Should the optimal culture be reset partially and should activities be deleted or to be added to the change initiatives “basket”?

Fine-tuning mission, vision and strategy.

The output   of workshop 2 is a first major step to a change program. Of course, the client decides whether to embark on a change journey if there are substantial gaps between the actual and optimal scores or not. It all depends on the importance the client attaches to the gaps and the envisaged feasibility to realize change successfully.

Step 4.7        Upload characteristics into system

The external consultant uploads the features that the client has selected to work on, into the system. Our databank contains around 800 change levers. Each of these change levers is attributed to one, or sometimes two, dimensions and in that case usually also to one or two characteristics that the client has selected. In this way the client is automatically offered those change levers that will help to realize change effectively and efficiently, i.e. and in a most focused and cost effective.

5.3.5        Step 5: Workshop 3 – Make change happen indirectly

Step 5.1              Introduction

                  INPUT                                                                                                           OUTPUT [6]

         Change levers                                                                                    Real life activities

Chart 9 gives an overview of the activities which clients and external consultants may want to do. This is a crucial phase. Often change activities get stuck in good intentions. Too often they never leave the drawing board. In our case too, the activities are merely good intentions. They may have been formulated more focused, but so far they are mere words, not deeds. The challenge is to translate the change levers into real-life activities. Workshop 3 is aimed exactly at that. This phase does not need to be limited to a single workshop, but let’s keep it simple for once and stick to the format in Chart 9. We will highlight essential issues we have come across when developing and managing workshop 3.

Chart 9

Step 5.2        Brief the client

Managing the process well is vital to the success of this workshop. This includes deciding on workshop location:            

There should be enough space;

The lay-out of the room should facilitate the active participation of everyone.

The preparation and execution of workshop 3 is labor intensive, given the number of participants and the various activities. To ensure ownership, we ask the client to appoint their own people to actively assist in the preparation and execution and to conduct part of the introduction.

Participation:

It is advisable to include everybody who will be affected by the implementation of the real-life work activities.

Whether the participants come from different groups or belong to one group depends on:

The number of participants and the size of the meeting facilities

Whether the groups are going to address the same issues. If the issues differ, it is better to keep the groups apart.

Functional sub-groups can be created if the number of participants is large enough. The sub-groups will be asked to select from the change levers those which they think will address the issues at hand most, to translate these change levers into real life work activities and to empower teams or individuals to implement these.

The more people participate in this workshop the better. A well-structured workshop can host around 36 people. If more people are involved, it is advisable to conduct several workshops 3. This will ensure active participation of everyone. It is not uncommon that a fair number of such workshops take place. In our experience, the  internal consultants can then successfully conduct these workshops after having participated in two or three of these workshops.

Planning:

What needs to be done - when, where and by whom? Workshop 3 is an important step and with the potential scale of participation, proper planning is required.

Timing: date and length of the workshop.

Distribution of tasks. For a group of 36 persons 4 facilitators are required, of which ideally at least 2 internal consultants. Preparation and executing the workshop has to be divided among the facilitators.

The facilitators are also responsible for planning the sequence of activities in the workshop and the presentations.

Who will arrange the location?

Who will arrange which facilities such as pin boards, cards, beamer, screen, chairs, work tables, etc.?

Step 5.3        Prepare the workshop

Consultant and client jointly decide who does what. Most of the activities listed in Chart 9 are self-explanatory, but it is useful to elaborate a bit on the presentations. Most participants in Workshop 3 did not participate in the other two workshops, so they need to be brought up to date. The presentation should focus on what has been done so far and how this relates to this workshop.

Steering committee and internal training

The more hands-on process in Workshop 3 demands more involvement from the client, for example through its steering committee. Once the activities are geared at real-life work, the role of the external consultants changes to overseeing consistency and keeping the process on track to achieve the objectives of the client.

To achieve such involvement on the part of the client, it is good to train employees to:

Become involved in Workshop 3 and conduct these;

Support follow-up implementation;

Monitor implementation.

Step 5.4        How to conduct Workshop 3

The workshop should start with an introduction to all, addressing:

Where we came from and where we are heading to

Purpose of the workshop

What we want to realize:

Translating change levers into real life activities which support us to realize our tasks and objectives successfully;

Who will be responsible for the implementation of which activities?

Organizing the monitoring of this workshop, if it has not yet been defined.

The output of Workshop 3 are real-life work activities. Before these activities are implemented, the following has to be done:

Translation of a change lever into real life activities have to be checked for consistency. y  Does the chosen activity still assist the client to realize the change on the dimension concerned as intended? Note, that although one should not any longer need to talk in terms of culture, the model remains a useful analytical tool. Thus, at the background the model can still be used to ensure consistency.

Management has to decide whether the persons who have volunteered to become responsible for the implementation of a certain activity have the time to do so and are capable of doing so. If not, then management has to intervene, of course in a nice way.

Those being responsible have to come up with a plan of implementation. Resources may be needed to realize these new activities. Also in this case management has to give its endorsement.

Prior to the workshop, change levers can be added or deleted from the list, to ensure that they match the work reality of the group. To simplify that task, there are different sets of change levers for managers and non-managers. The level of discretion and abstraction of their work normally differs between managers and non-managers and to this difference the change levers have been adjusted. For management the change levers are of a more strategic nature.

Step 5.5        Follow-up

Some activities that can be included in the follow-up stage are:

Collect and record all suggestions made in the workshop to follow-up easily;

Obtain the green light from those in charge of change implementation, certainly if additional resources are requested;

Define time line (if not done in workshop 3);

Put people in charge of execution (if not done in workshop 3);

Decide about monitoring process;

Monitor.

The role of culture

Once change levers have been chosen, there is no more need to use the word “culture”. It is actually better to avoid this word. Culture is a tool of analysis - nothing more and nothing less. It is all about improvement. On a more strategic level, this will be covered by managers in particular. On an operational level relating to day-to-day work activities, this will be mostly covered by non-managers.

External and internal consultants should bear in mind that people on the work floor tend to have the existing culture still at the back of their minds. When translating change levers into actions, they may unwillingly reinforce the existing culture instead of changing it.

The role of the consultant is then to monitor whether the translation of change levers really supports change,  both in terms of culture and in terms of daily practices.

Example: Suppose that it has been decided to increase the score on dimension D4, by making the culture more professional. It has been decided that from now on employees will be invited to attend external conferences. You now have to decide who will be allowed to participate, when and under what conditions, given limited time and resources. The group that discussed this realized that not everybody could participate in external conferences during the next two years. They felt that this was not fair and decided that this initiative should be cancelled. This decision would have resulted in social control being left intact – this being precisely a reflection of the local culture which the group wanted to change. The challenge is then to explain this and to come up with criteria which would still make the process of choice fair.

Although consultants no longer talk in terms of culture, they need to have excellent insight into the model in order to give proper guidance and feedback.

In Annex 8 a detailed script shows how workshop 3 can be organized.

Step 5.6              Announcing the repeat measurement

It is one thing to set change goals, it is another thing to make it happen. It is not uncommon that top management is not genuinely committed to change, even when a lot of time, effort and money has been invested. The effect of failed attempts to change is that employees become cynical. During the next change initiative they will go through the motions, but are no longer convinced that management really cares.

The best way for management to show that this time it’s for real, is to announce that a repeat measurement will be held in 1-1,5 year. That shows genuine commitment. Whether the repeat measurement will actually take place, is unpredictable. But if it doesn’t, staff will even become more cynical than ever before and performance will drop.

5.3.6        Step 6 Executive Match – Direct change

Step 6.1              Introduction

                  INPUT                                                                                                           OUTPUT [7]

         Optimal scores;                                                                          Profile of top managers

Results of 360 ° feedback

The combination of the optimal scores and 360 ° feedback can assess the potential of a manager to enable or hinder realization of the optimal culture. The visible part of a manager’s profile is his/her behavior, which is in part a reflection of his/her attitudes and convictions. Behavior is of course also shaped by the context as we perceive it.

This profile tells the manager and the consultant whether (s)he has to adapt his behavior to make the optimal culture come true. For the subculture of his/her own team this relates to D1, D3 and D5 and for the whole organization it relates to D2, D4, D6 and D8.

Chart 10

Step 6.2        Brief the client

Top managers may be reluctant towards assessments, certainly when it concerns a 360 ° assessment. A 360 ° assessment implies that a top manager is assessed by direct reports and peers. There may competition within the management team or political games that endanger the career of some MT members.

In many cases, it requires diplomacy and persuasion to get an executive match accepted. The whole process has to be explained in detail and guarantees have to be given that each manager is in full control at all times of the feedback received.

At all times it should be guaranteed that:

The top manager has no right to read reports of his colleagues in the MT without their consent;

No report will be made available to anybody without the consent of the person assessed;

It is up to the manager concerned to decide whether he wants support after reading the report.

The information can be only used to debrief individuals and, if they want, to help them to do a better job in enabling the optimal culture. Under step 6.6 we describe how it can be used for teambuilding and mutual support.

Step 6.3              Data collection and reporting

What applies to generic 360 ° assessments also applies here.

The person who is assessed cannot decide who assesses him/her. This is to avoid that only people who are likely to give a positive assessment are selected, leaving out people who might be critical about his/her behavior.

Respondents should be absolutely sure their identity is not revealed, certainly when they assess their superior.

In order to guarantee anonymity, the number of assessors should not be too small.  

Each manager should assess no more than five colleagues. Including a self-assessment, that makes 6 assessments of 44 questions each. That makes a grand total of 264 questions to answer and that is a lot.

If the MT has over six members, each member can assess fewer colleagues, preferably those he knows best. This can best be arranged by HR which anyway need to have an overview of the process.

Step 6.4        Discuss reports on an individual basis

It can be very sensitive to discuss a report with someone if the feedback is not positive. By positive we mean whether behavior, attitudes and convictions are in line with the optimal culture as defined by this management team itself.

If this feedback will be deployed for concerted action, team building and mutual support, each manager has the right to decide which information in his/her personal report can be shared with the whole team and which not.

Step 6.5              Follow-up on an individual level

It is up to each manager personally to make up his/her mind about following up on the gaps between his/her personal profile and the optimal culture. Do they feel an urge to change their behavior and the underlying attitudes and convictions? Do they think they are able to do so on their own or do they need support, for instance, by being coached?

Step 6.6              Follow-up on team level

We often notice that managers are reluctant to say that they do not want to share their reports with their peers. It is recommendable to ask again after each individual debriefing, when they know what they are talking about whether they want to share the results of the assessment with their colleagues. To allow them to come up with a balanced judgment, we give them three options:

No information at all is shared. This has never happened.

Only the average scores of the team are shown and compared with the optimal culture,  to start concerted change activities, team building and mutual support. This is rarely chosen.

Members allow each other to read the conclusions of each individual report. These conclusions cannot be kept to avoid that they take on a life of its own. People change over time and it is very difficult to describe someone with 100% certainty. This option is selected most often. The first team building session can be based on the conclusions of these reports and feedback sessions can be organized. A good method is to have each member give a short feedback of say, 7 minutes, to a colleague only in positive wording. The one receiving the feedback can only ask questions for clarification, but is not allowed to talk back. In this way, members of a team can give honest feedback, and quite often this is for the first time they do so.

The group then has to decide what to do to improve performance and to support each other to behave according to the new culture they themselves defined.

Ideally these meetings take place regularly with an external consultant as a moderator.

Step 6.7        Announce a repeat measurement

What has been said under step 5.6 also applies here.

[1]  Open communication is enabled by the scores on D1 and D5.

[2]  The importance of the grapevine is one of the many things that can be measured by our quick scans.

[3]  Note that during the third workshop one may want to involve as many people as possible irrespective of level of education.

[4]  Plus additional information loading those scores

[5]  Plus additional information loading those scores

[6]  Plus additional information loading those scores

[7]  Plus additional information loading those scores