Search results matching tag 'Organizational culture'

"Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail" by John P. Kotter

jstengel — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:26:29 GMT

The author begins the article citing his experience with over 100 companies attempting to remake themselves, from General Motors to Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Successful change within these companies has ranged from very successful to total failure. Because of these experiences, it is recognized that change is in itself a process which contains a series of phases that must all be completed in order to produce satisfying change.

Kotter identifies eight phases or stages a company must successfully complete in order to obtain lasting change:

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency

Examine market and competitive realities for potential crises and untapped opportunities.
Convince at least 75% of company managers that the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown.
Identify and discuss crises, potential crises, or major opportunities.

2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition

Assemble a group with enough power to lead the change effort.
Encourage the group to work together as a team outside of the normal hierarchy.

3. Create a Vision

Create a vision to direct the change effort.
Develop strategies for realizing that vision.

4. Communicate the Vision

Use every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategies for achieving it.
Teach new behaviors by the example of the guiding coalition.

5. Empower Others to Act on the Vision

Remove or alter systems or structures that undermine the vision.
Encourage risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions.

6. Plan for and Create Short-Term wins

Define and engineer visible performance improvements.
Recognize and reward employees contributing to those improvements.

7. Consolidate Improvements and Produce More Change

Use increased credibility from early wins to change systems, structures, and policies undermining the vision.
Reinvigorate the change process with new projects and change agents.

8. Institutionalize New Approaches

Articulate connections between new behaviors and corporate success.
Create leadership development and succession plans consistent with the new approach.

In addition to the eight stages necessary for obtaining and maintaining satisfying change, Kotter also identifies corresponding possible pitfalls for each stage that can derail the change project all-together. The following are the eight major errors identified in the article that can halt a change project, or even destroy any positive changes made thus far.

1. Not Establishing a Great Enough Sense of Urgency

Underestimating the difficulty of driving people from their comfort zones.
Becoming paralyzed by risks.

2. Not Creating a Powerful Enough Guiding Coalition

No prior experience in teamwork at the top.
Relegating team leadership to an HR, quality, or strategic-planning executive rather than a senior line manager.
Companies that fail in phase two usually underestimate the difficulties of producing change and thus the importance of a powerful guiding coalition, groups without strong line leadership never achieve the power that is required.

3. Lacking a Vision

Presenting a vision that’s too complicated or vague to be communicated in five minutes.
Without a sensible vision, a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing and incompatible projects that can take the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at all.

4. Undercommunicating the Vision by a Factor of Ten

A good transformation vision is developed, but a single form of communication is used.
The head of the organization spends a considerable amount of time making speeches to employee groups, but most people still don’t get it.
Much effort is put into communication, but some very visible senior executives still behave in ways antithetical to the vision.

5. Not Removing Obstacles to the New Vision

Failing to remove powerful individuals who resist the change effort.
Communication is never sufficient by itself; renewal also requires the removal of obstacles.

6. Not Systematically Planning for and Creating Short-Term Wins

Without short-term wins, too many people give up or actively join the ranks of those people who have been resisting change.
Leaving short-term successes up to chance.
Failing to score successes early enough (12-24 months into the change effort).

7. Declaring Victory too soon

Until changes sink deeply into a companies culture, a process that can take five to ten years, new approaches are fragile and subject to regression.
Declaring victory too soon – with the first performance improvement.
Allowing resistors to convince “troops” that the war has been won.

8. Not Anchoring Changes in the Corporation’s Culture

Not creating new social norms and shared values consistent with changes.
Promoting people into leadership positions who don’t personify the new approach.

The article closes with the disclaimer that there are indeed other mistakes to be made, but these are the big eight when dealing with transformation. This is meant to be a simple guideline for the process, not an answer to any situation that occurs.

Citation

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review OnPoint(March-April), 1-10.

“Futures That Work: Using Search Conferences to Revitalize Companies, Communities, and Organizations”

jstengel — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:13:21 GMT

A search conference is a participative planning event that enables people to create a plan for the most desirable future of their community or organization, a plan they carry out themselves. Search conferencing has a long, rich history. The first search conference happened in 1960 in Great Britain when leaders of two aircraft engine manufacturers came together in the first search conference to merge their two companies into one. The inventors of the method and the leaders of that first search were social scientists Fred Emery and Eric Trist. The search conference is a practical way to build communities of people who step up to the challenges of our turbulent times and take responsibility for making change happen in a purposeful way. As the world becomes more and more turbulent, the need is great for people to form communities to search for their desirable futures together. The search conference puts people in the driver’s seat of change, so they can steer together toward the future they want for their system, making adjustments as they go forward.

This book has a detailed description of what happens in a search conference, identifies the many ways it can be used, the principles that it is based on, how to plan for a search conference, and stories from many different organizations, from a Palestinian YMCA to Microsoft. It is a good guide for those who want to bring together a group of people to plan strategically and holistically and, importantly, in an accountable and sustainable way to implement what they plan. It also begins to shift organizations to a more open and participative culture.

Citation

Rehm, R., Cebula, N., Ryan, F., Large, M. (2002), “Futures That Work: Using Search Conferences to Revitalize Companies, Communities, and Organizations”, New Society Publishing and Hawthorn Press.

What Do We Know About Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation

jstengel — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:05:25 GMT

This article gives a brief overview of organizational culture including its definition, various models, and both qualitative and quantitative methods of studying an organization’s culture. The author begins by discussing culture in general and sites Hofstede’s early findings from research with IBM. She then talks about management research on specific dimensions of organizational culture (innovation and risk taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people orientation, individual and team orientation, and aggressiveness) and about a two dimensional framework of culture which looks at internal focus versus external focus as well as stability and control versus flexibility and discretion. Finally, the article explores both qualitative and quantitative methods of observing an organization’s culture and advocates for a combination of both. The author recommends specific assessment tools, consulting firms, and suggests overall, that outcomes of assessment be tied to an organization’s need for innovation.

Assessment tools:

Survey assessments
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
Organizational Culture Index (OCI)

Citation

Aiman-Smith, L. (2004) What Do We Know About Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation. What Do We Know Journal Review, 1-5 DOI

Building Culture Strategically: A Team Approach for Corrections

jstengel — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:18:28 GMT

The guide, developed under the Strategic Planning, Management and Response project, encompassed six tasks: 1) identify/develop a strategic planning model/process useful to facilities; 2) & 3) develop a strategic management model/methodology and strategic response model/methodology to be used in facilities; 4) prepare a guide to provide and train staff in their implementation; 5) develop a process for measuring the effectiveness of the models; 6) write a literature review encompassing strategic planning, management and response.

Initially, the project team surveyed all 50 states about work related to strategic planning, management and response, conducted site visits to four states, and conducted a literature review on strategic planning, management, and application. Survey highlights are briefly and quantifiably summarized in the preface. The models, developed by Carol Flaherty-Zonis, were pilot-tested in 2003-2004 at the Westville (Indiana) Correctional Facility. “Positive” preliminary findings were reported, although no quantifiable research results are presented in this guide. The literature review did not focus on historical research but briefly summarizes the tenets of 10 schools of thought on strategic planning highlighting the elements of each that factored into the Flaherty-Zonis model, named the Rubik’s Cube® Models of Strategic Planning© and Strategic Management©. A framework to provide facilities a method of implementing strategic change based on the models is provided along with definitions for all key concepts such as organizational culture, strategic planning, strategic response and strategic thinking.

The Rubik’s Cube® model assigns a purpose to each of the six sides of the cube based on both strategic planning (p. 8) and strategic management (p.9). The six “sides” of the cube are the following:

Setting the Stage (Side 1:Green),
Identifying Strategic Issues (Side 2:Red),
Charting the Future (Side 3:Orange),
Crafting Strategies (Side 4:Blue),
Bringing the Strategies to Life (Side 5:White),
Sustaining Change (Side 6:Yellow).

The process of implementing the model is outlined in five stages:

Assessing the facility’s readiness for strategic planning;
laying the groundwork;
planning and holding the kickoff meeting;
holding team meetings to develop responses to the Cube® questions;
drafting and finalizing the strategic plan.

An assessment inventory, termed the Organizational Culture Inventory®, is provided as an appendix (D) in the guide.

Tools: The above tool, Organizational Culture Inventory can be found at the following websites: http://www.leadershipassessments.net/assessment.htm & http://www.humansynergistics.com/products/documents/OCI_Sample_Standard_Report.pdf.

Citation

Flaherty-Zonis, C. (2007). Building Culture Strategically: A Team Approach for Corrections. J. McNaughton, National Institute of Corrections

"Cognitive-Behavior Modification and Organizational Culture."

jstengel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:59:59 GMT

This article discusses the application of Cognitive-Behavior Modification (CBM) to organizational culture in order to influence organizational behavior. The author sites the work of Karl Weick and constructivist theory which states that individuals create the organizations they are apart of, while in turn they are impacted by those organizations.

The article explores the cognitive-behavioral framework for interventions including constructivist narratives that can be analyzed and reconstructed to assist with behavioral change. The integration of functional analysis into CBM is then introduced whereby a subject’s interaction with the setting is observed in order to produce a complete picture of the subject in the environment.

The author then ties together the commonalities between constructivist theory of organization with CBM: personal reality and organizational reality are constructed by the individual, that organizational culture and personal reality alike do not exist apart from perception and that efforts to modify both personal life and organizational life must build on these basic facts. Finally, the specific CBM methods of co-construction, re-framing, functional assessment, skill development, leveraging key relationships, and reducing complexity are applied to organizational interventions and specific examples are given from the author’s pilot team development program.

Citation

Boan, D. M. (2006). "Cognitive-Behavior Modification and Organizational Culture." Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 58(1): 51-61.

An Introduction to Changing Organizational Culture

jstengel — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:55:16 GMT

Cameron and Quinn’s first chapter (An Introduction to Changing Organizational Culture) sets a radically assertive tone. Their arguments and claim that organizational culture separates all other previous researcher attempts to explain sustained organizational success, both public and private, are at once compelling and doubt-evoking.

Later in Chapter 1 the authors conclude that former initiatives attempted on a global scale, such as TQM, downsizing, and organizational reengineering, all have a common ingredient that determined individual organizational success or failure: the culture; i.e., whether the strategy of choice had adequately addressed what the current culture was and where it needed to go.

The authors cite an example using the famous Chevy Nova/Toyota Corolla joint venture (Fremont Plant) where all other factors remained more/less constant except for the installment of Japanese management. What ensued was a 180-degree turnaround from various assorted negative practices, work performance, and outcomes to across-the-board high visibility positives—all attributed to a monumental shift away from a prevailing crippled culture. These authors offer cultural definition, classification, and diagnosis [Chapters 2-5] of organizational culture, offer prescriptions on how to go about changing it [Chapter 6]; with the final Chapter [Chapter 7]; supplying reliability and validity information on their organizational culture assessment instrument.

Citation

Cameron, K. S. and R. E. Quinn (1999). An Introduction to Changing Organizational Culture. Diagnosing And Changing Organizational Culture. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall 161.

"Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural..." by Yauch and Steudel

Donna Cooper — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:48:00 GMT

The authors' goal was to ascertain key cultural factors that enhanced or detracted from companies' ability to institute new manufacturing techniques, while evaluating the qualitatiave and quantitative methods used to analyze their organizational culture.

[Yauch, C. and Steudel, H. (2003). Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4): 465-481.]

Hypothesis Tested

Using qualitative and quantitative research methods in a mixed-methods approach will result in a more comprehensive understanding of organizational culture by allowing for a triangulation of cultural factors and providing a deeper understanding of what drives organizational behaviors.

Yauch and Steudel point out that, many researchers describe qualitative and quantitative methods as "mutually exclusive," or inappropriate for combined use. However, some researchers contend that a mixed-methods approach can be useful for a) corroborating data and obtaining convergent validity, or what is termed as triangulation; b) complementarity, or more fully explaining the results of analyses; and c) guiding further data collection, sampling and analysis, or what is termed development (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham, 1989).

Research Design Method

Two Midwest firms, a Plastics Company (PC) and a Beverage Equipment Company (BEC), were selected to participate in both a research and consulting project conducted on site, without cost, by the authors. Both companies were implementing a new cellular manufacturing structure.

Qualitative assessments of the cultures at both companies were obtained through:

Document review,
Participant observation, and
group interviews.

Quantitative data were collected using The Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) (Cooke & Lafferty, 1987), an assessment protocol from Human Synergistics/Center for Applied Research. Key features of this organizational culture assessment are:

It measures 12 sets of cultural styles or behavioral norms, with 10 items for each category.
The survey asks to what level employees or managers are expected to follow certain behaviors to fit in or meet certain organizational expectations.
The surveys are administered in a paper and pencil format using a five point scale, with 1 = "not at all" and 5 = "to a very great extent."

Sample Populations

Plastics Company (PC) group interview participants included:

16 men, 6 women;
ages ranged from 23-57, with an average of 38.7 years;
21 participants were white, and 1 participant was black;
length of time employed ranged from .2 to 26 years, with an average length of employment equaling 9.2 years;
7 were top management, 7 middle management, 8 shop-floor workers.

Beverage Equipment Company (BEC) group interview participants:

11 men, 13 women;
ages 23-60, average 42.3;
24 white;
years employed .9-28, average length of employment 8.3 years;
4 top management, 10 middle management, 10 shop-floor workers.

The OCI survey was administered to randomly selected employees and managers who had been employed at least six months at both companies. At PC, 26 out of 74 eligible employees were assessed, and 17 out of 41 eligible employees were assessed at BEC. Demographics are not given. At PC, the OCI was administered in four sessions during one day, while at BEC, the survey was administered in two sessions held 10 days apart.

Measurements

The qualitative and quantitative research was conducted over a 17 month (PC) and 16 month (BEC) time frame and included:

participant observation,
document analysis,
group interviews,
follow-up meetings,
the OCI survey,
analysis of cellular manufacturing and the implementation of cellular manufacturing.
Interviews were "semi-structured" around guiding questions and selected artifacts (Schein, 1992). At the PC, questions about why meetings usually started late allowed the researchers to examine the nature of time within the organization. BEC's guiding questions related to group boundaries, as evidenced in the separate parking areas utilized by the various employee groups.

The OCI instrument has been validated as reliable in measuring and assessing the "normative aspects of culture"(Cooke & Szumal, 1993; Xenihou & Furnham, 1996).

An independent auditor, an industrial engineer with a background in qualitative research methods, validated the authors' cultural evaluations, both in the realm of qualitative and quantitative.

Limitations

Random sampling of BEC organization included only one member of the fabrication unit, which did not allow the authors to compare departmental responses. The length of time needed to conduct qualitative analysis (11-14months) can be prohibitive. There was an additional concern on the part of the researchers as to the amount of time between the administration of the quantitative OCI surveys and the more lengthy qualitative interviews, group meetings, and participant-observations. However, the authors cite Cooke and Szumal (1993) as suggesting that an organization's cultural norms remain steady over time, even when in a state of transition.

Additionally, there were unexpected language difficulties for several participants in the OCI surveys. Several participants in the survey were unable to read and understand the questions as English was not their first language. The researchers also noted a problem among participants with the interpretation of some of the OCI questions. With regard to an integration perspective (Martin, 1992), the random administration of the OCI surveys assumed a universal and homogeneous culture for the entire organization. Such an assumption is invalid if there is evidence of subcultures within the organization.

Finally, the authors were most concerned that using only a quantitative analysis of culture would not result in any understanding of why people responded the way that they did or if the questions were even understood as intended.

Findings

Two dominant cultural factors were shown to negatively impact the implementation of innovation in the form of cellular manufacturing at both firms. At PC, avoidance, or the "tendency" of individuals within the group to "shift responsibility to others to avoid blame" emerged as a prevalent obstacle in both the qualitative and quantitative assessments. At BEC, rigid group boundaries were recognized as a negative factor through the participant-observation and group interviews (qualitative assessments). The OCI did not address boundary issues. The inability of members of the group to interact with employees in other areas was observed in both the parking patterns and in the lunchroom, both of which were segregated by work domain.

The authors contend that a mixed-methods approach to analyzing culture provides a deeper, more compelling understanding of organizational culture. This contention implies a complementary purpose, rather than a triangulation (Sale, et. al., 2002). A combined approach, the collection of numbers and words, produce a "more robust" result, both in the data and in understanding the underlying paradigm. By using both a quantitative and qualitative methodology, one is able to understand both what and why.

Implications

The work of Yauch and Steudel supports the idea that qualitative and quantitative data is necessary to fully understand organizational culture. The OCI (quantitative survey) provided an unbiased assessment of cultural artifacts, norms, assumptions, and behaviors. The participant-observations, interviews, group meetings, and open-ended questions (qualitative assessments) led to an understanding of why certain artifacts, norms, assumptions, and behaviors were evidenced.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts:

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). Organizational culture inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the organizational culture inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sale, J.E.M., Lohfield, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Szumal, J.L. (1998). Organizational culture inventory interpretation & development guide. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
Xenihou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49, 349-371.
Websites for OCI: http://www.humansynergistics.com; http://www.leadershipassessments.net

"Organizational Culture and Leadership" by E. Schein

Donna Cooper — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT

This book is a thorough and thoughtful treatise that provides a functional/structural explanation of organizational culture. Schein draws upon his broad as well as deep understanding and experience with organizational culture change. He also lays out foundational principles for understanding the dynamic interplay between leadership and organizational culture. First-hand, long-term experiences with different companies' cultures, change and leadership are offered to illustrate and help the reader knit a deeper understanding of his key concepts for understanding organizational culture, leadership and their intertwined relationship.

[Schein, Edgar (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey Bass Publishers]

The book is organized in three sections:

Part One: Organizational Culture and Leadership Defined;
Part Two: The Dimensions of Culture;
Part Three: The Leadership Role in Culture Building, Embedding, and Evolving.

Levels of Culture

In defining organizational culture, Schein describes three fundamental levels at which culture manifests:

artifacts;
espoused beliefs and values; and,
underlying assumptions.

Artifacts are apparent on the surface as behavior and tangible products of the group (e.g., language, the group's design of its environment, enacted rituals) and beneath these forms the climate of the organization represents the deepest level of cultural artifacts. Espoused beliefs and values, according to Schein, are shared ideals and theories which may or may not actually guide behavior. Finally, the author defines the core of an organizational culture as being the underlying assumptions that members tend to share and take for granted. The latter assumptions are reflexive and therefore generally unquestioned or unexamined. Schein finds that the alignment between espoused beliefs/values and underlying assumptions is crucial for the group to become mission oriented.

The author claims the primary dimensions of culture are external adaptation and internal integration and he depicts these two aspects of a culture as relatively interdependent. The external adaptation process consists of five steps in a loosely organized cycle:

Mission and Strategy;
Goals;
Means;
Measurement;
Correction.

Furthermore, the above process steps are enacted within any organizational culture through a pecking order (artifact) that ramifies power and ideologies (espoused beliefs) that ramify meaning. The latter mechanisms are factors that primarily influence how integration occurs within a culture.

Schein provides several types of typologies (e.g., participation, corporate character, intra-organizational typologies) for diagnosing and understanding a given organizational culture. Assessing and addressing an organization's cultural alignment is the critical job of leadership according to Schein, who sees leaders as the chief architects and builders of organizational culture.

The last set of chapters in the book stress the hand-in-glove relationship between culture and leadership. Schein describes and explains organizational culture as being semi-plastic, with motivational thresholds wherein particular aspects of the culture unfreeze or freeze, depending on the developmental (i.e., early growth, midlife, mature) stage. Depending on the skill and resources of a leader, Schein suggests they can operate upon the culture like a glass-blower does upon glass, using timing and deeper understanding of the medium to mold innovative new alternative designs.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts etc.

Edgar H. Schein, Ph.D., Sloan Professor of Management Emeritus, MIT. email: scheine@mit.edu

"Sentencing in Context: A Multilevel Analysis" by Ulmer, J. T. & Johnson, B.

Donna Cooper — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:40:00 GMT

The organizational culture, social context and local judiciary influences on criminal sentencing decisions in Pennsylvania from 1997-1999 are the subject matter for this multi-level, quantitative analysis conducted by Ulmer and Johnson.

[Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing In Context: A Multilevel Analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137-178.]

The authors elaborate on two pioneering studies by Britt (2000) and Kautt (2002) that offered key methodological and theoretical contributions. This study focuses on state sentencing and includes a wide array of offenses. It also extends Britt's analysis on the effect of race in sentencing data in 3 key ways:

broader focus,
more extensive local contextual measures (e.g. court characteristics) and
more recent data.

Hypotheses Tested

The authors proposed a total of 12 hypotheses.

Severity of sentencing will vary between counties.
The effects of key predictors will vary across counties.
County size will be negatively related to sentencing severity.
Counties with more conservative politics will issue more severe sentencing.
A practical constraint of jail capacity is positively related to incarceration odds.
More severe and violent offenses will have a greater effect on incarceration odds in counties with less jail capacity.
A defendant's prior record will have a greater effect on incarceration odds in counties with less jail capacity.
Heavier county caseloads will be negatively related to sentence severity.
Trial conviction (a positive effect on sentence severity) will be greater in counties that have heavier caseload pressure.
In counties with lower trial rates, there will be positive effect of trial conviction on sentence severity.
Positively related to sentencing severity at the county level will be the volume of Blacks and Hispanics.
Blacks and Hispanics will be sentenced more severely in jurisdictions with greater volumes of those minorities, respectively.

Research Design Method:

Individual level sentencing data and county level contextual data from county criminal trial courts in Pennsylvania from 1997-1999 (three years) were collected via the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS). These data contain information on all misdemeanor and felony sentences in the state plus type of offense, race, gender and age of the defendant, as well as case-specific attributes such as the application of mandatory minimum sentences. Contextual data from the U.S. Census, Uniform Crime Reports and the 1999 County and City Extra were also used. Cases in the analysis were limited to the most serious offense per judicial transaction and to those utilizing the 1997 guidelines.

Dependent Variables: Two dependent variables were utilized:

the in/out incarceration decision;
the number of months those incarcerated were sentenced.

Incarceration was coded 1 if the offender was sentenced to any length of confinement in a county jail or state prison. Non-incarceration options such as probation, restitution, etc were coded as 0. The sentence length variable was coded to equal the number of months the offender was sentenced to serve.

Independent Variables: Several individual case and contextual level factors served as independent variables including:

severity of the current offense (measured using the Offense Gravity Score ranging from a 1 as least serious to a 14 as the most severe),
offense type (measured with 3 dummy variables: 1=violent offense, 2=property offense, 3=drug offense),
prior criminality of the offender (measured using the Prior Record Score, an 8 category scale ranging from 0 - 8 with the last two categories reserved for repeat felons and repeat violent offenders),
sentence recommendations (what the guidelines indicate as an appropriate sentence -- for in/out models coded as 1 if incarceration was recommended and 0 otherwise -- for sentence length models coded to equal the minimum number of months recommended per guidelines);
presence or absence of mandatory minimums (coded as a dummy variable to control for the mandatory minimums). Offender demographics, as noted earlier, were also examined. Case-processing factor, the mode of conviction, was also included. This was measured with 2 dummy variables: 1 if convicted via negotiated plea or a trial, 0 if through non-negotiated plea. Data not collected included: defendant's socioeconomic status, type of attorney and bail.

In addition to the individual factors, a variety of aggregate level contextual measures for the 67 counties in Pennsylvania were included:

court size,
judicial caseload,
trial rate,
available incarceration capacity of each county.

Court size was trichotomized into large, medium and small based on both the number of trial judges and the proportion of cases adjudicated in each county (modeled after Ulmer, 1997). Judicial caseload was determined by dividing the number of total criminal cases in each county by the number of sentencing judges. Trial rate was measured as the percentage of cases determined via jury trial.

Other variables included: political context of the county (based off voting recordings in the 1996 presidential election), available jail space (total number of beds divided by the number of cases in that county, higher ratio equally higher jail capacity), county poverty rates, amount and type of crime in each county.

Sample Population

Pennsylvania offers valuable jurisdiction information because it has operated under sentencing guidelines since 1982; presenting a potentially strict test of contextual variation in sentencing relative to non-guideline jurisdictions. Sentencing guidelines offer uniformity such as:

quantifying/standardizing sentence decision criteria;
mandate courts to consider these criteria;
recommend uniformity in sentencing ranges.

In contrast, Pennsylvania contains two of the largest U.S. largest cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) as well as numerous medium-sized cities and small rural communities, so there is wide variance in terms of resources and crime rates. In addition, there are wide variances in prosperity, racial, ethnic, religious, political affiliation and cultural diversity across the state. This is key as judges and district attorneys are elected and not appointed.

Measurements

Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was utilized as it provided several advantages over traditional analytical strategies such as ordinary least squares (OLS). The authors utilized this analytical strategy to investigate various complexities surrounding the influence of individual and contextual factors on sentencing outcomes. Over several pages, they discuss the benefits and strengths of this type of analysis and provide sources for greater detail on hierarchical logistic modeling.

A one-way random effects ANOVA was utilized to examine the unconditional models and to partial out the amount of variation in each sentencing outcome occurring at each level of analysis. This allowed the authors to determine the amount of variance between versus within counties, and provided a baseline from which later models could be evaluated. Next, level 1 explanatory variables were introduced via random coefficients ANCOVA with individual level predictors to estimate the effects of individual characteristics on sentencing outcomes. This allowed the authors to evaluate reductions in variance at each level of analysis due to individual level characteristics. It also allowed the fixed and random effects of level 1 explanatory variables to be examined.

Level 2 predictors were included next (random coefficients ANCOVA models with level 1 and level 2 covariates) to provide key information about mean differences in sentencing patterns across counties and attempt to explain via the aggregate variables. Finally, the authors estimated interactive models with level 1 and level 2 variables and cross level interactions fully specified (random coefficients ANCOVA models with cross level interactions).

Findings

In both the incarceration and sentence length models, significant variation existed between counties. The sentence length model demonstrated that this variation was small compared to the amount of within-county variation. Legal factors such as offense severity and prior record strongly related to both the likelihood of incarceration and length of sentence. Violent offenses were associated with increased sentencing severity. Offender characteristics also significantly influenced sentences; Black, Hispanic, male and younger offenders received more severe sentences. Also, mode of conviction was an important level 1 determinant of sentencing severity; offenders that go to trial have increased likelihood to be incarcerated and longer sentences. While most of the variation in sentencing did occur at the individual case level, there were significant between-county variations in sentencing not explained via individual case factors.

Major findings include:

considerable sentencing variation noted between counties (hypothesis 1 support),
significant variation existed between counties in the effects of all individual level predictors (support for hypothesis 2),
large courts incarcerated less and gave shorter sentences (support for hypothesis 3),
local jail capacity was positively related to incarceration odds (support for hypothesis 5),
counties with heavy caseloads were less likely to incarcerate (support for hypothesis 8),
trial penalties were greater in counties with heavier caseloads (support for hypothesis 9 -- caseload did not account for all the between-county variation),
Blacks were given longer sentences in counties with greater black population percentages and Hispanics were given longer sentences in counties with greater Hispanic population percentages (support for hypothesis 12).
Of the 12 hypotheses tested, seven are supported or partially supported in the direction predicted (furnished in a well-constructed table in the Discussion section); hypotheses #4, #6, #10 were not supported; #11 was supported for Hispanics; and #7 was significant but in the direction opposite of the hypothesis.

Review Summary

This organizational culture research article has four merits that are demonstrated throughout:

appropriately delineating a hierarchical linear model (HLM) of research (a template) for examining outcome variables suspected of being unduly and inappropriately influenced by social/human services cultures (i.e., accounting for interaction effects between organizational culture and independent (intervention) variables;
the need to translate/communicate the research to the widest possible audience (professionals and lay readers alike);
presenting a must-read for CJS professionals in general;
reinforces the often noted influence local context (of which organizational culture is a component) has on outcome measures across all disciplines and markets.

This study was framed using a term borrowed from Salvesberg (1992): focal concerns theory; i.e., that culture-specific concerns embedded within any local court community lead to substantive rationalities in how they carry out sentencing; instead of there being a world view, a localized cultural view governs.

Implications

Dilemmas exist between due process rights and the organizational structure of the court system as it plays out in the community. It was found that defendants who invoke their right to a trial and are found guilty are sentenced more severely than those who plead guilty through the plea bargain process, thus undermining the constitutional right to trial. Additionally, where one is sentenced has a measurable effect on the length of one's sentence, which runs contrary to the notion of equal justice under the law.

Tools/Knowlecge Objects/Resources

Britt, C. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 707-732.
Kautt, P. M. (2002). Location, Location, Location: Interdistrict and Intercircuit Variation in Sentencing Outcomes for Federal Drug-Trafficking Offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 633.
Salvesberg, J. (1992). Law that does not fit society: sentencing guidelines as a neoclassical reaction to the dilemmas of substantivized law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1346-1381.
Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1996). Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity. Criminology, 34(3), 383-408.

"Fostering a Performance-Driven Culture in the Public Sector" by Risher

Donna Cooper — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:20:00 GMT

The role of culture in organizations and hands-on management practices that support performance as a cultural priority within the public and private sectors are the focus of this author.

[Risher, H. (2007). Fostering a Performance-Driven Culture in the Public Sector. The Public Manager, 36(3), 51-56.]

Mr. Risher furthers our understanding of organizational culture by citing the simple definition by T. E. Deal: "the way things get done around here;" and the more academic definition by Charles Hill: "...the collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with contacts outside the organization. The culture dictates the beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve thee goals..."

Risher notes that while performance (or pay for performance) has been an on-going priority in the private sector, the public sector has been slow to adopt that priority for, among other reasons, fear of significantly changing the culture. A case in point is the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which in 2001 initiated a program for performance improvement that was met with significant resistance by employees.

To counteract such resistance, Risher recommends assessing the on-going culture as it impacts employee performance via surveys, focus groups or interviews.

He also summarizes a multi-dimensional management practice, which fosters performance, and came via the author's own research and a study by the London School of Economics (LSE) and McKinsey & Co. (Dorgan, et al, 2005). The eight-pronged approach to performance involves:

Leaders as Champions - key people across the organization need to advocate and explain why the new strategy is needed and how it will affect people;
Work Link to Mission - feeling their work is integral to the success of their employer and understanding the mission are general concerns of employees;
Performance Tracking and dialogue - tracking it over time, taking corrective measures and broadly communicating results keep employees involved and attending to performance;
Cascading Goals - being able to see the "big-picture" regarding goals at each level keeps employees engaged at all levels of the organization;
Investment in Talent - investing in and promoting qualified personnel and development of individual talent support performance goals;
Recognition and rewards - strategies that recognize and reward high-performing employees should be both fostered and evaluated now and then to ensure they are serving the needs of the organization;
Manager Accountability - managers need to be committed, trained and reinforced in helping employees improve performance, and manager performance should be evaluated regarding these goals;
Employee engagement - research performed by Gallup and others shows a correlation between emotional commitment to the success of the company and an employee's high-performance level; surveys help reveal employee engagement.

In conclusion, Risher notes that the aforementioned research confirms the obvious: "Well-managed companies perform better." The author also suggests that agencies should focus on the day-to-day practices of middle managers and supervisors to foster a performance culture rather than the OBM focus, which was on management systems in relation to performance of the overall organization.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts/Etc:

Dorgan, S. J., Dowdy, J. J., Van Reenen, J., & Rippin, T. M. (2005). The Link between Management and Productivity: London School of Economics.
Risher, H., & Fay, C. (2007). Managing for Better Performance: Enhancing Federal Performance Management Practices: IBM Center for the Business of Government.