Fig: 5
|
Fig: 5 |
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.