The organisational culture triangle - how the different cultures interact

As promised in my previous post, here is something about how the six organisational cultures of the 'Culture Triangle' can tend to view and interact with each other. It explains the concept of 'Organisational Boxing' and provides some specific approaches and tools that can be used to manage it.

Please read my previous post for descriptions of the six organisational cultures.

Organisational boxing

Each organisational culture has very strong values and preoccupations that are very distinct from one another. These give organisations a strong sense of identity and purpose. They also affect interactions and relationships with other organisations.

The strong values that drive distinct cultural behaviour can lead to organisations ‘boxing’ each other. Boxing in this context has two specific meanings:

•       The first is that organisations will tend to perceive each other in specific and more or less fixed ways; they will tend to put each other into perceptual boxes. The nature and strength of these perceptual boxes will be based upon assumptions and judgements about the behaviour observed and how it fits or otherwise with preconceptions about certain organisations. For example, if law enforcement organisations are perceived as hierarchical and formal and the observed behaviour confirms this, then the perceptual boxing will be quickly achieved and firmly fixed. If the observed behaviour is mainly contrary to what is expected then the boxing will be less marked. Preconceptions will still exist, but because there is little or no behaviour to support them the boxing will be less defined.
•       The second, which will be most apparent and problematic when organisational behaviour seems to confirm unhelpful preconceptions, is that organisations from different cultures will tend to ‘put their guards up’ when dealing with each other and be more inclined to ‘fight their own corners’ and work at keeping others in theirs, reacting to the perceived drawbacks and threats of dealing with an ‘opponent’ culture rather than recognising the opportunities that working with a ‘complementary’ culture could provide.

 

How to avoid unhelpful organisational boxing

Given that we all hold preconceptions of one kind or another about most of the people and organisations with which we come into contact, some form of organisational boxing as defined above is almost always inevitable. The key, however, is to avoid the most damaging kind of boxing. This is created when behaviour confirms preconceptions. The following approaches and techniques can be helpful in achieving this:

Adopt a mind set of curiosity: Being curious encourages us to make contact, ask questions and explore, rather than withdraw and make demands from behind our defensive guard.

Edward de Bono’s PMI thinking technique can help us adopt a structured approach to being curious. PMI stands for Positives, Minuses and Interesting. When dealing with other organisational cultures ask questions about: the positives it possesses and how to make good use of them; its minuses and how to minimise them; what is interesting about the culture and how this can be exploited to mutual advantage.

Develop reflexivity: This is the ability to recognise the effect of our behaviour upon others and to alter it as is necessary to achieve better relationships and results.  Force field analysis can help us achieve this:

• Identify those aspects of your own and others’ behaviour that are driving things forward and helping to improve things.
• Give each aspect a value according to its significance (1 least significant to 5 most significant).
• Identify those aspects of your own and others’ behaviour that are holding things back and not helping to improve things.
• Give each aspect a value according to its significance (1 least significant to 5 most significant).
• Lastly, identify the actions you can take to maximise the former and minimise the latter.

Create time for informality. Including informal gatherings and meetings in a partnership’s approach and activities can help us get to know the individuals behind the organisational masks.

Once we know people better we are less inclined to box them into preconceived roles or perceive them as generalised types. Instead, we begin to appreciate the knowledge, skills and qualities of the individuals with which we are working. This changes the nature of our working relationships with other organisations (because they become more unique and personal they become more significant and valuable to us) and helps us realise their potential contribution to the achievement of partnership aims.

Use an independent mediator or bridging person to ensure communication is maintained and developed between partners and avoid views, perceptions and positions becoming entrenched.  He or she can act as a trusted sounding board and critical friend to all parties, help facilitate discussions, identify and develop links between organisations and encourage organisations to develop reflexivity.

Pair up individuals from different organisations and cultures and ask them to work on key aspects of the partnership’s activities. Working with someone from a different background with different views helps foster mutual understanding and minimise unhelpful preconceptions. It also lays the foundation for a long-term relationship, based upon meaningful individual ties, that will benefit not only the people concerned but also the partnership as whole.

A good focus for such pair work is evaluation. This is because, as well as concentrating upon the detail of a partnership’s activities, it provides an opportunity to gain a broader, big picture view of its work. This helps people appreciate how the contributions of the organisations involved currently (and potentially could) link up and support each other to achieve a partnership’s goals. This appreciation will help to relax organisational and cultural boundaries and facilitate closer relationships and inter-organisational working.

Click here for the next post in the series.

The organisational culture triangle

 

Click Here to see a short introductory video from Charles Lines about this and other related posts.  

 

 

This model identifies six organisational cultures that those working in partnership will commonly encounter. It also identifies their usual focus and preoccupations and gives an indication of the types of business and activities they undertake.

An important part of an organisation's cultural focus is whether it is inwardly or outwardly orientated.

Inwardly orientated cultures tend to be preoccupied by personal issues and needs and internal power and relationship dynamics. Who has the power within the organisation? Which people and groupings are influential within the organisation? How can one fulfil his/her personal needs within the organisation? Who does one have to cultivate and align one’s self with in order to become powerful and influential within the organisation? They also tend to look for external allies that they can pull in to support their position and increase their power and influence.   

Outwardly orientated cultures tend to be preoccupied with the external environment. How are they affecting the environment within which they exist? Are they having a positive or negative effect on their environment and the people upon which their activities are targeted? Are they making a meaningful contribution? Are they successfully interacting with their environment? Do they have a good and productive/profitable relationship with their environment and external people and customers? They also tend to look for external contacts that can be used as conduits through which they can push their information and services, so increasing the scope and depth of their activities.     

Political cultures value power and influence. They tend to be entrepreneurial type businesses with one or two key power brokers that groups tend to form around and with which individuals seek to align themselves. The way to meet personal goals within these organisations is to be a political player. For this reason political cultures tend to be inwardly orientated.

Artistic cultures value self development, fulfilment and contribution. They tend to be artistic and creative businesses consisting of people that value their personal development, the fulfilment of their potential and the contributions they can make. As people tend to value their personal development and are keen to make a difference and contribution, the focus of artistic cultures can sometimes be inward looking towards influencing the organisation to support personal development and sometimes outward looking towards maximising individual contributions to the external environment and society.

Functional cultures value hierarchy and role. They tend to be public service type organisations such as the military, civil service and local authorities. People within these organisations are keenly aware of their place within the internal hierarchy and also the role they are required to carry out in providing services. For this reason the focus of functional cultures can sometimes be inward looking and sometimes outward.

Passionate cultures value commitment and belief. They tend to be voluntary and community type organisations. Their people have a strong commitment to making a difference within their area of activity and also a strong belief that they are doing ‘the right thing’. For this reason the focus of passionate cultures tends to be predominately outward towards making a positive difference in the environment and society.

Pragmatic cultures value context and results. They tend to be financial and service organisations. Their people are keenly aware of the environment and context within which they are operating and seek to identify and adopt approaches that will achieve the best results for their organisations within these. For this reason the focus of pragmatic cultures tends to be predominately outward towards the environmental situation. They will analyse the environment within which they are active and find ways to survive and thrive within it.

Expert cultures value the acquisition and application of knowledge and experience. They tend to be consultancy and other specialist type organisations. Their people value not only adding to their knowledge, but also their ability to use their knowledge to solve problems and address complex situations within environments relevant to their expertise. As their focus is on the acquisition of knowledge and its application to their environment, the focus of expert cultures tends to be outward.

Look out for future posts that will explore how each of the above cultures tend to perceive each other and how relationships between them can be effectively managed.

Click here for the next post in the series. 

(Acknowledgement is given to Charles Handy and the four organisational cultures he describes in his book 'Gods of Management'.)

Bite size pieces: create a shared sense of partnership time

'We all perceive the passing of time in different ways. These perceptions are influenced by the cultures we live and work within and how important or central an issue or subject is to us. If we are used to working within a fast paced environment we will become frustrated if results are not achieved quickly. If we are used to a slower pace, then not achieving results quickly will not worry us so much. If an issue is important to us it can often, regardless of the actual amount of time involved, feel as if ages are passing before it is addressed. If an issue is not important to us then the amount of time passing before it is addressed is of little or no personal significance, so even long periods of inactivity can go by almost unnoticed.

These differing perceptions of time and the significance of its passing will all be interacting with each other as a partnership comes together and begins its work. If these perceptions are not managed effectively they will cause mutual frustration, misunderstandings and perhaps even conflict.

Encouraging partners to think explicitly about how they perceive, react to and use the time they spend working together will discourage unhelpful preconceptions about what should be happening by when. It will help create a new, shared sense of pace and time that is appropriate to a partnership, what it needs to achieve and how it needs to achieve it. Discussions about partners' expectations and obligations, together with discussions about the balance and timing of rewards allocated to partners, are practical ways to create this shared sense of partnership time.'


From Sleeping with the Enemy - Achieving Collaborative Success:
          
For more details click here.

A partnership must be both predictable and unpredictable

In order to gain support and build trust a partnership needs to be predictable. It needs to set reassuringly worthwhile objectives and use consistent, tried and tested ways of working that will help it achieve them. In many ways it needs to be quite traditional in the way it presents itself and its activities.

 

But many partnerships do not really know what they can achieve, or how they might best go about it, until the various partners have started working together. For this reason a partnership’s activities and goals can and should be subject to unpredictability. In short, a partnership needs to be not only credible and reassuring but also creative and dynamic.    

Case study

Leeds City Council worked with various partners to set up a system of ‘Youth Hubs’. These created central points that offered a range of services to young people. The project needed to be professionally run and compliant with good practice in order to attract funding. It also needed to gain the involvement of young people so that they would feel some ownership of the hubs’ activities and therefore be encouraged to take advantage of the services on offer. 

To obtain funds it was important to prepare and submit bids that were compliant with the funders’ requirements, but the proposals contained within the bids needed to be attractive and meaningful to the young people who would benefit from the hubs’ services. 

Rather than merely consulting young people for their views the project made young people partners in the endeavour and asked them to take the lead in writing and presenting the bids. They were offered help and support with the bidding process, but the ideas and approaches contained within the bids were generated, developed and presented by the young people themselves. 

The bids were successful, the hubs were set up and young people began using the services. 

The success of this project was due to its ability to marry predictable, compliant and consistent good practice with the unpredictable, less compliant creativity of young people.

 

 

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

Follow @charles_lines    

Bite-size pieces: use the delphi technique

This technique is especially useful for partnerships that are widely spread geographically. An e-mail is sent to all those involved in the partnership asking them to evaluate the effectiveness of the partnership so far and identify those aspects that they think are of most significance. Then all the replies are collated and put into list form. These lists are then sent out to the same people as before, asking them to reply with their top ten most significant items. These replies are again collated and listed. These lists of ‘top ten’ items are sent out to the same people again, with an additional request that they reply with their top three items. This process of collecting, collating, disseminating and filtering responses can be repeated as many times as is deemed appropriate and useful. 

For maximum effectiveness this exercise needs to be followed by a meeting or conference that brings together all those who have contributed their ideas. They can then discuss and analyse the results in detail and think about ways to address the key issues identified.

For more about this technique go to http://www.mycoted.com/Delphi 

Sleeping with the Enemy - Achieving Collaborative Success:
          
For more details click here.

 

 

Exploit collaborative capital

Creating a reputation for being committed to working in partnership with other players in an industry or sector is of immense value.

New biotechnology companies seek out well known and well established biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies with which to collaborate. Being associated with these trusted players helps address the legitimacy and credibility issues that automatically attach themselves to most new ventures. It can also help them gain additional influence within their sector and attract increased funding from investors. 

The Italian oil company Eni has a long standing reputation for seeking to forge alliances with African national oil companies. The fact that they did this first, at a time when other international oil companies showed little or no interest, and have consistently maintained and developed this approach over many decades, has made them a partner of choice for many national oil companies.

The IT company Intel has gained much collaborative capital from its high profile and highly successful history of collaborations with others from within its sector.

Being involved in fruitful collaborations with key competitors and others of present or potential significance provides companies with collaborative capital that is as valuable as money in the bank. Organisations can use this capital to enhance their legitimacy and credibility, gain influence within their sector or industry and become a trusted partner of choice for their competitors.

For more about collaboration go to: Sleeping-with-the-Enemy-Achieving-Collaborative-Success-2nd-Edition

Bite-size pieces: a partnership must focus on short and long-term issues at the same time

When a partnership is formed it is often in response to some very pressing need that individual organisations alone have not been able to address effectively. As a consequence of this, short-term aims and concerns tend to clamour for attention. It is, however, a partnership’s longer-term strategic aims that are most likely to make the real difference in terms of whether or not a partnership is truly effective in its endeavours. Therefore a partnership delays dealing with these longer-term aims at its peril.

When ‘Community Links’ worked in partnership with others to set up a Social Enterprise Zone in Newham they had many pressing issues that needed to be addressed in order to get local people out of the poverty trap and contributing to the development of their community. They also knew that any advances they made would be very short-lived if not embraced over the longer-term by mainstream organisations.

 

The simple act of inviting someone from a mainstream public organisation (the Inland Revenue) to work with them helped address both short and long-term goals. They gained key expertise that helped address short-term issues around dealing with the informal economy and encouraging people away from benefits, and they also created a conduit into a key organisation that would help them achieve their long-term aim of cementing new ideas and practices into the mainstream.

 

From Sleeping with the Enemy - Achieving Collaborative Success:
          
For more details click here.