Search results matching tags 'Organizational culture' and 'Assessment'

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

"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

Cultural Transformation in a Health Care Organization....by Barriere, et al.

Donna Cooper — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:08:00 GMT

Innovative leadership is the driving force behind cultural transformation. Organizational change is fostered in an atmosphere of trust and realized over time. Essential to successful, innovative structural change are interpersonal leadership skills which are flexible yet consistent. Change operates from the "bottom-up," as well as from the "top- down." These are the conclusions of Barriere, Anson, Ording and Rogers in their case study of an 1,800-employee, cardiac hospital in metropolitan New York, which transitioned from a stable, bureaucratic institution to a "highly-adaptive, world-class" cardiac center.

[Barriere, M. T., Anson, B. R., Ording, R. S., & Rogers, E. (2002). Culture Transformation in a Health Care Organization: A Process for Building Adaptive Capabilities Through Leadership Development. Consulting Psychology Joural: Practice and Research, 54(2), 116-130.]

The authors, who were the external agents (consultants) for change at the hospital, noted that details of the transformation process are often lacking in the literature. Thus, their purpose was to provide details of the change process, which involved "designing, implementing and evaluating a leadership development intervention" to set the hospital on a more adaptive, innovative course. The hospital's challenge during this four-year initiative was to stay competitive and maintain patient-care and regulatory compliance standards.

Change Shift

The change mandate came from the hospital's chief executive officer (CEO) and human resources vice president, who realized that to maintain the hospital's leadership position in an increasingly competitive environment, would take more involvement and innovation by the lower-levels of the workforce. This shift to leading change from down-up was a dramatic departure in the hospital culture, the authors noted.

Three key steps were determined necessary to foster a workable cultural transformation:

delineating organizational priorities in a changing health care industry;
assessing the existing hospital culture;
designing, implementing and evaluating interventions aligned with priorities that create and continue "an innovative and adaptive culture."

Senior-level focus groups facilitated by the outside consultants were formed initially to establish organizational priorities. Through the focus groups, senior executives determined that mid-level management help would be key in driving innovation and communicating with subordinates. This led to one of the highest hospital priorities: ensuring that management possessed the leadership skills to acquire an adaptive culture. Once this priority was established, the hospital developed and implemented a two-part leadership training program: Leadership I, which focused on individual leadership skill development and performance; and Leadership II, which was designed to encourage and foster cross-department communication and support.

Prior to the leadership training programs, Barriere et al utilized the Litwin Stringer Climate Inventory (Litwin & Stringer, 1968) and other less formal input to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the existing work culture and to gather suggestions for improvement. Feedback was received from about 20% of the hospital's employees, who were divided into four tiers for the inventory:

Tier 1 - - senior management (VP through CEO);
Tier 2 - - management reporting to senior management (assistant VPs through division heads);
Tier 3 - - line managers;
Tier 4 - - all other non-managerial staff.

These tiers were randomly sampled and asked to evaluate six organizational categories: structure; standards; responsibility; recognition; support; and commitment.

The overall Litwin inventory results showed that:

employees across all tiers rated organizational commitment and structure most positively (82% and 76% respectively);
considerable deviance was noted between Tier 1 and other Tiers in the responsibility category (more than 60% positive responses from Tier 1 vs. less than 25% positive responses from Tiers 2,3 and 4);
low scores for recognition (41%) were reported by Tier 4;
discrepancies between the tiers were noted with regard to support from and standards being exhibited by supervisors.

The lower scores with regard to responsibility dealt with employees feeling they had little autonomy to act/think independently, or encouragement to assume responsibility. The low recognition scores were interpreted as insufficient recognition for accomplishments. An additional, open-ended response survey supported the conclusion that while organizational structure and staff commitment were highly rated, improvement was needed in areas of communication, teamwork, individual initiative and innovation. These employee climate survey results provided the baseline data for the Leadership I and II's program development, structure and goals.

Three questions, derived from the hospital-wide, employee climate surveys, guided the structure of the Leadership I program. The first asked which aspects of leadership culture most needed to be improved. The second question involved an investigation of the practices currently used by the hospital's "best" leaders. And third, what behaviors would the best future leaders need to exhibit. Five leadership themes emerged from these guiding questions:

communication skills
motivation and feedback
staff participation in goal setting
individual challenges
Teamwork

Using the questions, leadership themes, and the climate surveys, the consultants devised a "leadership placemat" or rubric which consolidated "33 critical leadership practices" into six categories:

communicating organizational values
encouraging initiative by individuals
constructive coaching and feedback
the creation of a climate of trust
personal leadership
"leveraging the entire hospital team" (community building)

*Table 1: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES PLACEMAT*
I. Hospital Values Communication	II. Encouraging Individual Initiative	III. Constructive Feedback & Coaching	IV. Creating Atmosphere of Openness & Trust	V. Demonstrating Effective Leadership	VI. Leveraging the Entire Team
l. Effectively balancing the hospital's business and patient case priorities	7. Clarifying responsibilies within the group	12. Giving feedback on job performance	18. Conducting meetings in ways that build trust and respect	23. Selecting and promoting the best people	28. Putting hospital objectives ahead of personal, unit, or departmental ones
2. Communicating high personal standards of compassionate care	8. Encouraging people to initiate tasks or projects thought important	13. Providing fair and even-handed feedback	19. Behaving in a way that encourages trust	24. Managing change in thoughtful and well-planned ways rather than reactive	29. Collaborating effectively with others
3. Setting challenging performance goals and standards	9. Encouraging people to find and correct their own mistakes	14. Recognizing good performance more than criticizing mistakes	20. Encouraging an open exchange of ideas and different points of view	25. Focusing time and energy on most important priorities	30. Encouraging shared ideas and information with others
4. Treating employees fairly	10. Encouraging and rewarding innovation and new approaches	15. Being supportive and helpful on a daily basis	21. Listening to others	26. Being a person who delivers what is promised	31. Understanding which decisions can be made alone and which need to involve others
5. Demonstrating personal concern for success of employees	11. Empowering people to deliver high quality care	16. Going to bat for people with your manager when you feel they are right	22. Responding in a nondefensive way when others disagree with you	27. Acknowledging one's own mistakes and limitations	32. Recognizing value of diverse per-spectives and opinions
6. Pushing people to look for new ways of saving money, increasing productivity and improving quality		17. Spending time to coach effectively			33. "Reaching out" to help people in other departments

The Leadership 1 program used the 33 leadership practices identified in the leadership placemat as their change agenda for management, and encouraged management to use the collected data to determine which leadership practices needed improvement and which leadership skills needed to be developed. To support which leadership practices needed improvement, feedback was solicited from a representative sample from each manager's subordinates. Following stringent collection and interpretation guidelines for these feedback results, a two-day workshop was provided by consultants to:

help managers interpret the feedback results and determine development needs and action plans;
provide training and coaching to management in the identified leadership skills that needed improvement.

Following the completion of Leadership I training, management provided feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure pre- and post-training. Two new priorities to facilitate cultural and organizational change emerged:

the need to develop models for constructive feedback and coaching, and;
the need to facilitate teamwork and a sense of community across departments.

With these guiding priorities, the Leadership II program was developed and implemented. Leadership II provided additional coaching and the setting of goals and action plans by the individual managers. The rubric developed in Leadership I was again employed and progress on the six leadership categories was monitored over time. Overall, there was statistically significant progress made in all 33 subsets over the two year time frame measured.

Results

Overall, there was statistically significant progress made in the 33 subsets. Over a two year time frame measured between the beginning of each leadership program there ws improvement noted in all leadership skills including a 10% increase in percentile rank in 22 of the 33 practices. All areas noted as weaknesses in Leadership 1 showed a 10% increase or better in percentile rank.

The approach taken by the hospital was influenced by and consistent with Harvard Professor John Kotter's change model, which involves relying on leaders from all levels of an organization to inspire cultural transformation. The same population of managers participated in both leadership programs in a similar top-down approach. The leadership development handbook For Your Improvement by M. Lombardo and R. W. Eichinger, was supplied to all managers as part of the Leadership II program. The consultants coached management in developing action plans for their leadership development based on the recommendations outlined in the handbook. The authors contend that it is those sorts of "soft science" leadership skills, which when transferred across the employment tiers that are the essence of effective, adaptive and innovative cultural change.

The consultants, through their expertise and the use of objective data from the climate surveys, focused on building trust and support for change across management tiers, which was vital to the success of this culture transformation.

In conclusion, when managers were given the opportunity to develop and practice exemplary leadership behaviors, these "best practices" became the underpinnings for cultural transformation. At the conclusion of this four-year project, the Leadership Practices Placemat was incorporated into each employees' yearly evaluation and training. Managers solicited input from their subordinates in developing goals and action plans, and a new performance assessment tool was developed for both managers and subordinates to receive objective, meaningful feedback. Essential to meaningful organizational change, the authors note, are the necessity of results being measured over time, the clear communication of the organizational vision to all stake-holders, and the roles individuals, both "at the top" and "on the bottom," play in promoting and propagating cultural change within organizations.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts/Etc:

Resources:

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1996). For Your Improvement : A development and coaching guide. New York: Lominger Limited.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968) Motivation & Organizational Climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Dalton, M. (1996). Multirater feedback and conditions for change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 12-16.
Michael T. Barriere last found email address: psymthb@hofstra.edu.