|
Edges / Relationships
Edges connect the cornerstones. (See Figure 5.) They also
serve as edges for each of the faces of the model. In the
model, these edges represent the relationships between the
cornerstones. The specific labels for those relationships
emerge as one considers how the two cornerstones interact.
Identifying and scrutinizing the relationships results in
increased understanding of the function they provide in
the model. Once that understanding reaches a point where
it contributes to one's decisions and actions, it approaches
what Kaipa refers to it as a competence. "Competence
is not a skill or knowledge; rather it combines skills,
knowledge and a feeling of confidence in an integrated way
to get the job done. Once people feel competent and the
culture is conducive to risk taking, they may be willing
to put their energies into what they do (Kaipa 2000) ."
Each of the six edges in this model will be discussed below.
Each cornerstone is directly connected to three edges. We
will begin with the three edges connected directly to Leadership
i.e. vision, executive style, and governance. Then we will
consider the Culture cornerstone where two of its edges
have yet to be discussed –- motivation and will power.
Finally, the remaining edge i.e. discrimination, which connects
Strategy and Structure will be examined. We will begin with
the vision edge.
Vision
- the edge between Leadership and Strategy
Leadership
can provide vision for the organization, or at least the
seed for precipitating the vision. Having the vision, however,
is only part of the story when it comes to realizing the
vision. Potential strategies for accomplishing the vision
have a direct influence on how the vision is framed. Many
of our ideas are generated within a framework of knowledge
and experience. This framework's very existence contributes
to some degree to how the actual vision end-product. This
is not to say that visions are not generated that have no
conceivable mechanisms for achievement. But, it does seem
fair to say that the larger the chasm between vision and
strategy, the longer the time it will take for the vision
to become reality.
Some
visions are very futuristic and not intended to become real
in the sense of being a product or service in the foreseeable
future. Rather, they serve as energizing lights on the horizon
to which we aspire, all the while accomplishing smaller
more concrete visions along the way. The point here is that
what becomes a vision with true potential for actualization
will have been tempered by both leadership and strategy.
Leadership
might take an aggressive view of future market share; it
might seek a safe secure path to maintaining the status
quo or protecting market share against erosion; or it might
take a 360-degree view of the marketplace, a consideration
of basic maintenance needs coupled with some risk associated
with growth.
On
the darker side of leadership, some leaders might choose
to push for accomplishing something that would put the company
at great risk or that might call for action that would injure
the industry as this single company “"succeeded".”
Others might cause such a decrease in motivation to act
that nothing happens. The individual or group can become
paralyzed by a focus on issues of security and protection
of the status quo in the presence of information indicating
that other actions might be advisable. If leadership has
a lack of focus where there doesn't seem to be a handle
to grasp, the vision can suffer from a lack of energy to
set it in motion.
From
the Leadership cornerstone, the Vision DNA strand connects
with Strategy. This offers leaders the opportunity to see
the vision become reality. Strategy, or the lack thereof,
can also apply a dose of reality to the more grandiose vision.
In
the case of aggressive plans of action for taking on new
territory, Strategies might call for radical maneuvers in
order to realize the vision. If this moves into the shadow
zone, the vision could well exceed the limits of the system.
In a more protective strategic process, the vision can be
influenced to be much more risk resistant with reliance
on plans for maintenance rather than growth. One downside
to this influence is the possible failure to see the vision
of opportunity as a result of restrictive blinders.
From
a more balanced perspective, the Strategy would suggest
a vision with as much risk as Strategies could reasonably
be designed to accomplish while assuring that a fall-back
plan can be also created that will allow for acceptable
loss control.
Executive style - the edge between Leadership and Culture
Leadership
uses an executive style in its attempt to accomplish its
vision. When viewed from a top-down perspective, it appears
that leadership sits in the driver's seat when it comes
to selecting how execution of the vision will proceed. Those
organization members below the leadership ranks are often
seen as recipients of executive action. From a bottom-up
perspective, the culture also has significant influence
on executive style. The culture determines what seems fair,
how it will respond to executive action, how effectively
the vision will be accomplished relative to the leadership's’intentions.
The
reality is a melding of the two views resulting in a reflexive
relationship. Organizations that increase their understanding
of this relationship move it into the realm of a competency;
it becomes a tool or skill with the capacity for action
rather than merely a description from two anchoring positions
at opposite ends of a polarity.
One
type of executive style might make decisions unilaterally
in the attempt to streamline the process. Although this
can be effective to a degree, if the leader has an agenda
that is expected to win the day, regardless of others' opinions,
Argyris argues that this model I behavior will not create
maximum results. Taken a bit further, leadership might emerge
as very controlling - fearful that deviation could lead
to failure - rather than having an eye on growth. Adopting
a laissez faire attitude, on the other hand, letting things
happen as they might as long as things don't get “out
of hand”can create its own share of problems.
Again
ideally, the balanced executive style might strive for involvement
of many opinions prior to real decision-making; it would
also offer latitude in personal style in an effort to sustain
internal commitment, potential for corporate growth through
innovation, and reduced stress from the pressure induced
by rigid rule-based behavior.
An
action-oriented Culture could provide fast responses to
Leadership suggestions or updates, critical assessment of
directives looking for flaws that would impede success.
It could result in an “all-out effort” to cooperate
as evidence the Culture's confidence in Leadership. In the
shadow zone the “all-out effort”might take place
without adequate assessment adding tremendous risk to the
venture. A more cautious Culture could exhibit performance
based on perceptions of survival. It might demonstrate a
lack of response, or resistance, to any executive style
that asks for more than the basic level of performance.
The balanced position would have the Culture in a dialogic
relationship with Leadership –- considering alternatives,
suspending judgment, reflecting on the past and generating
alternatives for a future that addresses internal and external
factions.
<<
previous 1
| 2
| 3
| 4 next
>> |
