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:

1. Business-focus

2. Breakthrough

3. Experimental

4. 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