| Will
power - the edge between Culture and Strategy
Now
we come to the real engine of the model: will power. This
strand is anchored by culture and strategy. While motivation
can provide the enthusiasm for work and executive style
provides the manner of work, will power does the work. As
the culture feels the enthusiasm of motivation supporting
it from one side and the satisfaction of executive style
supporting it from another side, its will power increases
relative to the perceived potential of the strategy for
realizing the vision.
When
the culture is adequately supported, it provides energy
via will power to the strategy. If the strategy is not perceived
to be effectively connected to the vision or clear enough
to assist in decision-making, will power within the culture
may decline. If the energy within the culture is low as
a result of executive style and or motivation, the energy
directed toward the strategy cornerstone will diminish.
The
Culture can use its will power to be massively productive
or destructive. A sense of Nationalism in response to an
external threat is a great example. It can foster great
internal energy while at the same time the shadow side can
be running rough-shod over innocents outside the culture.
This could provide huge amounts of energy to a plan. The
culture may also endorse withdrawal within its borders and
then guarding them closely. In another scenario, the culture
might be so flush with resources that it squanders them
wastefully without an eye on outcome or responsibility.
A middle ground seems to find the engaged in dialogue about
next steps, assessment of prior plans, considering the underserved,
and looking to history for hints about when to move and
when to rest.
Strategy
must take into account that the Culture must have the capacity
to maintain the effort necessary to employ the action proposed.
Remember that the Culture’s motivation comes from
the Structure cornerstone, so that any motivation supplied
by the Strategy comes through its direct influence on Structure
or its indirect influence on Structure through Leadership.
Strategy influences Culture by virtue of its perceived rationality,
affordability, accessibility, compatibility with the Culture.
The
Strategic cornerstone might provide a plan so logical that
the Culture could not resist it. The Culture’s will
power is sustained by virtue of its inability to create
a logical better alternative. Taken too far, the Strategy
might co-opt the Culture through an aggressive cognitive
structure that seduces the Culture into supporting the plan.
Strategy
can promote a plan that is sustainable and enhances will
power by virtue of its focus on maintaining the status quo.
Or it might contribute to will power by the overall comprehensiveness
of the plan. This approach would create excitement by its
balanced and extensive scope thereby promoting sustainability
of will power as the plan unfolds. If Strategy not balanced,
will power might be created by virtue of a grandiose strategy,
but it will not come to reality due to its overwhelming
complexity.
Decision-making - the edge between Strategy and Structure
The
type of Structure in place, or possible, will have significant
influence on the Strategies selected. From the other perspective,
the types of Strategies required by the external environment
will certainly influence decisions made about Structure.
The
sixth DNA strand is decision-making, which is anchored by
strategy and structure. Accomplishing goals requires choosing
between alternatives. Considering the players in this model,
strategy brings its understanding of vision and its energy
driven by will power to bear on deciding what should happen
within the organization. On the other end, structure brings
its knowledge of the agreed upon container and the energy
provided by motivation into the decision-making equation.
Strategy might push for a decision that would allow it to
accomplish an objective, while structure might object because
the decision threatens the integrity of the structure or
its source of motivation.
Once
the decision has been made, the results pass through the
strategy cornerstone to affect leadership through the vision
and culture through will power. The same results pass through
the structure cornerstone to affect leadership through governance
and culture through motivation.
Looking
to the Strategy cornerstone from the Structure perspective,
Decision-making can push for individuals, work groups, teams,
and departments to consider winning, growth, and accomplishment
as the course of action. If this moves into the shadow zone,
decision-making can become self-serving for the structure,
while sacrificing Strategy. The Structure might pressure
the system to select Strategies that allow members to sit
back and enjoy what they have accomplished, or make decisions
in a defensive way.
From
a more balanced position, Structure can endorse decisions
that support Strategies aimed at meeting internal as well
as external demands. Housekeeping is seen as critical to
success as working in the field. An analysis of Structural
capacity and needs weighed against demands coming from the
Strategy cornerstone contributes to effective discrimination
as to how any strategy might be forged.
Looking
toward Structure cornerstone from the Strategy cornerstone,
Decision-making might push for resource allocation with
the end in mind. Another approach might see Decision-making
that supports resource allocation to “holding down
the fort”until the storm passes. Holding this position
well beyond the real storm threat, however, can lead to
an unnecessary loss of revenue or market share. Conflict
can arise here if Leadership's governance of Structure is
weak and motivation is high between Culture and Structure.
In this case, Structure may pressure Strategy to be more
aggressive. It is then Strategy's turn to push back with
information from its perspective.
In
one last example, Strategy looks for the best action or
combination of actions and inaction. It will attempt to
balance the information coming in from multiple sources.
It will consider leadership relative to Vision, energy levels
coming from Culture via will power, and resources available
from Structure weighing them against internal and external
demands. Returning to the forge, “"striking while
the iron is hot" becomes a reasoned decision rather
than a mandate to be employed at any cost.
Up
to this point individual elements or dyadic relationships
between those elements have been considered. This has allowed
for a progressive introduction of the pieces of the model.
As with most systems, complexity increases geometrically
with the addition of elements. The next section will present
a very brief look at the faces or scenarios of this model.
Rather than considering the simpler single cornerstone’s
relationship with another where a change in one affects
the other, there will be three cornerstones and three relationships
all considered to be influencing one another in a multitude
of ways.
Faces/Scenarios
The faces of the model represent scenarios created by the
interrelationship of the three cornerstones that define
that side, or face, of the tetrahedron. The interrelationship
is understood through the consideration of the qualities
of the three cornerstones and their three connecting competencies
acting together. Each of the faces has strengths and weaknesses
which will considered under the specific heading for that
face. In this model we assign the concepts of business focus,
experimental, breakthrough, and evolution to the faces.
The four faces are:
-
Business-focus
-
Breakthrough
-
Experimental
-
Evolution
Business-focus
Face
Business-focus
companies are not known for being strategy-focused or for
their visionary approaches. The business focus face is defined
by the Leadership, Structure, and Culture cornerstones and
their relationships: governance, executive style, and motivation.
Having a structure in place with effective governance enhances
the motivation of the culture. When this is supported with
effective executive style the machinery of business is ready
for work. The system is completed when the machinery generates
strategies for getting the business done.
Breakthrough
Face
Breakthrough
companies have inappropriate or weak structures compared
to the other groups. This lack of structure, however, is
just what contributes to the ability to achieve breakthrough
by virtue of the decreased amount if resistance by the pre-existing
structure. The breakthrough face is defined by the Leadership,
Strategy, and Culture cornerstones and their connecting
edges: vision, will power, and executive style. This face
represents the system unencumbered by pre-existing structure;
the structure emerges to support discoveries. Pre-existing
structures often hold out sunk costs as impediments to breakthrough
discoveries.
Experimental
Face
Experimental
companies have difficulty making leadership decisions. The
interest is not in a achieving a predetermined goal as much
as in the more individual nature of unique learning projects.
The experimental face is defined by the Structure, Strategy,
and Culture cornerstones and their connecting edges: decision-making,
will power, and motivation. In this case we have structure,
strategy and culture working together without influence
of leadership directing the activity. The energy of the
system is left to bring all resources to bear on exploration.
When leadership, sensitive to these elements, appears with
a vision, executive style and proper governance the organization
takes on the experimental attitude toward accomplishment.
Breakthrough shares similarities with experimentation in
that they are both concerned with a change in the status
quo. The difference, however, is significant. Experimentation
is concerned with hypothesizing, testing, and learning.
It is an ongoing process; discovery is the goal. Once the
discovery is made there may be insufficient mechanisms in
place to develop or exploit it. Breakthrough, on the other
hand, focuses on creation followed by development. The result
is a new way of doing things that has broken free of the
rules and regulations that previously regulated thinking,
being, and doing.
Evolution
Face
Evolution
companies lack appropriate culture for their business. The
process of evolution is continually disrupting the status
quo such that “the culture”as such is impeded
in its development. The evolution face is defined by the
Leadership, Strategy, and Structure cornerstones and their
connecting edges: vision, decision-making, and governance.
When the organization is dominated by these elements the
culture is allowed, or required, to change in response to
the environment. The environment determines the challenges
to which the culture responds. The moods involved determine
the condition of the space in which evolution occurs: positive
and nurturing or negative and struggling.
Effective
use of the pyramid model
A primer in model use should prove to be very helpful. Using
the model offers increasing advantage as one gains experience
with it. This is also true when one moves from one model
to the next. A certain experience accumulates with each
model that is transferable to subsequent ones; and yet,
each new model seems to hold one at arm's length initially.
Initial
Exeperience
Initial observations of a model are usually confined to
the more superficial aspects of the cornerstones, edges
/ relationships and scenarios. There are a number of insights
generated merely by having all the pieces in view without
having to remember them or hold a mental image of them.
The tangible model keeps all the elements in view and in
their “"proper"” places. One can experience
a real sense of freedom to think since the model is there
as a reference point.
It is as if our abstract thinking about the model is in
only 2-dimensions in the beginning. We know how to think
about architecture and art in 3-D and there is a language
for it (Kaipa 2000) . But, when we begin to talk about abstract
concepts we fall into the 2-D linear language and thinking,
which often precludes the subtleties that come with the
3-D process and language. There appears to be some type
of phenomenological experience with a 3-dimensional model
that expands our appreciation for the concepts contained
within the model.
Since
our language is not 3-dimensional, the transition into the
realm that allows for those perceptions about our typical
abstract thoughts takes time. In effect, when building a
model, one makes a linear, abstract statement about a relationship
between two elements. That statement is then ‘"unpacked"
and examined in a way that reveals its more poetic, spiritual,
and esthetic parts. In the end one has a set of non-linear
features that demonstrate the richness of the apparently
simple original statement. At this stage it has become a
“competency.” Competency is the capacity to
act effectively; it becomes an added skill for the system.
Without the richness from the unpacking process, the concept
might only be seen in the simple linear way - too simplistic
to be of much real value. This poses a problem for those
who were not involved with the creation of the model and
its inter-relationships. For them, even the simplest descriptions
can fail to gain any appreciation. The presentation within
this chapter attempts to take the reader on a journey much
like ‘unpacking.’
In the initial exposure to the model, one begins this unpacking,
but often begins to feel constrained by the linearity of
the 2-D language used much daily life. In the next stage,
perceptions may be experienced that are difficult to verbalize
in their completeness.
The
Transition
As one continues to mani pulate the model (rotating it in
space etc.) to achieve a deeper understanding of the parts
and relationships, the elements of the model eventually
begin to expand beyond the bounds of their assigned location
i.e. cornerstone, edge, face. The model takes on a vibrating
or swirling character so that some aspects of elements originally
assigned to one cornerstone can be seen in one or more of
the other cornerstones; and characteristics of one of the
competencies can be seen as part of one or more of the others.
Soon one begins to see the limits placed on the data by
the model's structure. Questions arise as to the real value
of the model since the data seems constrained; and, if the
data is constrained perhaps the relationships and insights
are too superficial to have much meaning. Still, there remains
this attraction through an intuitive sense that the model
has more to offer than what one has seen so far. Continued
investigation stimulates movement to the next stage of experience.
The
Quantum Leap
In the next stage it is as if one's perception of the model
has taken a quantum leap; and perhaps, in the dimension
of thought, it literally has. Once the “"leap"”
has taken place one experiences the potential of the model
as much greater than even initially perceived. The limits
of the structure that had been perceived earlier seem to
give way to a new way of “"seeing".”
The moving and blending of the cornerstones, edges, and
faces adds to the complexity that one perceives rather than
adding confusion and doubt as before.
Summary
of model use
The
unpacking process is complete. It is as if one started with
fourteen large boxes, one for each element of the model.
The boxes contained things, some of which we were aware.
The boxes had relationships to one another, most of which
we do not know. We were on an adventure to discover the
meaning contained in all the boxes: “Why was each
there?” “Why were they all there together?”
etc.
Then, one unpacked each box, considered its contents relative
to the others, and set each piece of the content somewhere
on the ground near its box of origin but keeping in mind
its connection to many of the other pieces. Once all the
boxes have been unpacked, the ground is covered with their
contents. The discrete boundaries of the territories around
each of the original boxes have been obliterated.
It is at this stage that one should begin to sense the competency
of a “new language”that has been created by
the process. The model should become as a rich source for
insights and dialogue.
Putting
it all together
At
this stage of our genetic mapping journey we have a considerable
amount of information. We have a 3-dimensional model of
the system with the richness of the attitudes associated
with the relationships of the cornerstones. Myriad conversations
can be pursued and assessments made about how the system
works now and might work in the future. Knowledge of the
strengths and weaknesses of the various components can inform
future decision-making. Once this process has been applied
to each of the organizations under consideration, the potential
of a merger or acquisition should be much clearer. This
process provides a mechanism for inquiry; the participants
provide the answers.
When
this process of genetic mapping is applied to each organization
considered in a merger or acquisition, a tremendous amount
of understanding is created. It is a very dynamic process
that considers richness that is often missed using other
forms of analysis. We do not propose that our approach replaces
all others; rather it is recommended as a unique addition
to the toolset for attempting this type of challenge.
Once
the genetic map of a company had been created, predictions
about problems it might face as well as its strengths should
become more reliable. These predictions can assist the company
in cloning itself when necessary. Comparing the genetic
maps of the companies involved in the merger or acquisition
can inform assessment of the culture gap to help the client-company
identify the appropriate steps for successful development
toward its future.
This
approach can be used with companies at the pre-acquisition
stage (candidate screening), decision-making stage (due
diligence stage to determine which of the potential targets
fit well), after the deal is signed stage or during the
integration stage. Obviously, the earlier the genetic mapping
process begins, the greater the returns the company should
realizes from its efforts.
References
Argyris,
C., Putnam, R, Smith, D. 1985. Action Science. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco
Lippitt,
R. From a conversation between Ronald Lippitt and Kathie
Dannemiller, Ronald Lippitt, NationalTrainng Lab, Bethel,Maine,
and Un iversity of Michigan in Ann Arbor .
Schein,
E. H. 1999. Corporate Culture. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Kaipa,
P, 2000, Knowledge architecture for the twenty-first century,
Behavior and Information Technology, Volume 19 Number 3,
p153 - p161
Prasad Kaipa , Chris Newham, and Russ Volckmann, April 1998,
Aligning Strategy, Processes, and People Through Pyramid
Building , Volume 9, Issue 3.
<<
previous 1
| 2
| 3
| 4 |
