Organizations, like people, develop. A start-up has different organization qualities than a 25-year-old, Fortune 500 company. As operations increase in scale and scope a start-up faces new pressures. Each increase in production, staffing, or market share increases their operating risk. What worked as a start-up company with a staff of 5 and $500,000 in sales can no longer manage the same way with a staff of 85 and $2.5 million in sales.
Frustration over organization culture, values, and communication many times comes down to values and interpretations: enter the Myers-Briggs (MB) type indicator assessment that seem all the rage.
The MB assessment focuses on the individual to convey their assessment and that person to manage both themselves and others from their assessment framework. For maximum effect you need to manage your MB filter and also know the MB profile of each person to manage to
everyone’s need – this is too much expectation for people to communicate in all conditions.
I have found little proof that an MB assessment provides actionable, sustained results for teams, operations, or communication with others. The most repeatable observation I see from an MB assessment is the initial excitement to share an MB profile result – akin to sharing a zodiac sign and as useful as a zodiac sign to develop and drive organization effectiveness.
I find the MB is not nearly as valuable as the Competing Values Framework for a results-oriented assessment. The Competing Values Framework is an early-level assessment I rely on to help an organization understand their culture and the real gap between strategic, operation, and functional alignment.
Competing values are important to understand effective performance. People are often recruited to manage within corporate value and demands; too often termed culture
. But what happens as a company grows? Not all people can manage in the new environment demands. Many wish for the old days and refuse or can not change. Organizations that understand change can train and manage and cultivate people who can grow with the organization and help those that don’t find a match for their style. Managing people out is always an easier conversation than hanging on hoping they will change or managing them with sensitive gloves.
The 4 values are represented in the below 4 x 4 matrix, Ad Hoc in the upper right-hand. A typical organization progression is a move from the upper right to upper left: from Ad Hoc to Clan; then from upper left to lower left: from Clan to Hierarchy; and finally from lower left to lower right: from Hierarchy to Market.
**Note: this is not a matrix describing optimum, operating efficiency or to suggest all organizations aspire to the lower, left, Market quadrant.
Further details from each of the 4 stages:
- The Ad Hoc organization is built to manage a rapidly changing climate. The Ad Hoc culture values speed and adaptability and can rapidly form teams to prototype and experiment. Ad Hoc environments are dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative focused on rapid growth and acquiring resources. Ad Hoc leaders are visionary, innovative, take calculated risks to make significant gains.
- The Clan organization has less focus on structure and control and a greater desire to maintain flexibility. People in Clan organizations are driven by vision, shared goals, and outcomes and less by strict rules and procedures. Clans have a sense of family where people work well together because of a strong loyalty to one another and the shared cause. Rules, although not necessarily documented, exist and are often socially communicated and heavily enforced. Clan leaders are usually facilitative, supportive, and act in a parental role.
- The Hierarchy has a traditional approach to structure and control from a strict chain of command, best described through Max Weber‘s original view of bureaucracy. Hierarchies respect organization position and power. These organizations rely on well-defined policies, processes, and procedures. Leaders of Hierarchies are coordinators, organizers, and deeply monitor what is happening.
- The Market organization seeks control, similar to Hierarchy. The Market organization is not focused just on marketing, but by all transactions, internal and external, as exchanges of value. Market cultures are results driven and often highly-competitive work places. Leaders in market cultures are often hard-driving competitors who seek always to deliver the goods.
So now values can be identified, what can be done?
With an Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument survey and subsequent scoring you can find out where your employees are at. Imagine your CEO operating in a Clan environment while your executive team operates in a Hierarchy environment, the disconnect is obvious.
Once an assessment is understood, training, job description roles & responsibilities, recruiting, rewards, and strategic alignment can be evaluated and modified. Strategically a discussion can begin on the values that should be retained, the values that should be adopted, and the values that are no longer applicable.
The key for me in my use of the Competing Values assessment is to increase organization awareness of risk management. As an organization moves from Ad Hoc to other stages how they identify, manage, and mitigate risk is a key factor for their sustained success.
2 Sources:
1. ChangingMinds.org
2.
