The reengineering alternative. A plan for making your current culture work.

by William E. Schneider

As of this book, orga­ni­za­tion­al cul­ture is an orga­ni­za­tion’s way to suc­cess. The con­cept of core cul­ture is the inner­most part of the orga­ni­za­tion’s cul­ture, the nucle­us of the cul­ture. Mov­ing from this nucle­us to the periph­ery every orga­ni­za­tion presents a spe­cif­ic com­bi­na­tion of char­ac­ter­is­tics that makes it unique. There are no such things as iden­ti­cal cul­tures, maybe sim­i­lar­i­ties can be per­ceived, but diver­si­ty is com­pa­ra­ble to nature. In addi­tion, core cul­ture does not con­vey any supe­ri­or­i­ty what so ever. There are no high­er or bet­ter cultures.

Orga­ni­za­tion­al cul­ture is tied up to lead­er­ship. How the lead­ers believe things should be done dri­ves the kind of cul­ture is estab­lished. Lead­ers build a par­a­digm (a con­stel­la­tion of con­cepts, val­ues, per­cep­tions and prac­tices shared by a com­mu­ni­ty), which they get from their per­son­al social expe­ri­ence. Their cul­tur­al par­a­digms are based on one of the four social insti­tu­tions and one of four indi­vid­ual moti­va­tions. The four social insti­tu­tions are mil­i­tary, fam­i­ly or ath­let­ic team, uni­ver­si­ty and reli­gious insti­tu­tions. The four indi­vid­ual moti­va­tions are pow­er, affil­i­a­tion, achieve­ment and growth.

Cul­ture is impor­tant because:

• it pro­vides con­sis­ten­cy to the orga­ni­za­tion and its people
• it pro­vides order and struc­ture for activity
• it estab­lish­es the con­di­tions for judg­ing inter­nal effectiveness
• it deter­mines the nature and the use of power
• it estab­lish­es man­age­ment practices
• it lim­its strat­e­gy (Peter Druck­er: “cul­ture eats strat­e­gy for breakfast”)

This is a ques­tion­naire to deter­mine an orga­ni­za­tion’s core cul­ture. Focus on your whole orga­ni­za­tion and not just your group, or department.

1. 1. When all is said and done, the way we accom­plish suc­cess in this orga­ni­za­tion is to:
      1. Put a col­lec­tion of peo­ple togeth­er, build them into a team, and charge them with ful­ly uti­liz­ing one anoth­er as resources.
      2. Pro­vide the con­di­tions where­by the peo­ple with­in the orga­ni­za­tion can devel­op and make valu­able accomplishments.
      3. Cre­ate an orga­ni­za­tion that has the high­est pos­si­ble lev­el of com­pe­tence and cap­i­tal­ize on that competence.
      4. Get and keep control.
   2. What do we pay atten­tion to pri­mar­i­ly in our orga­ni­za­tion and how do we decide about things?
      1. We pay atten­tion to what might be and we decide by rely­ing on what evolves from with­in the hearts and minds of our people.
      2. We pay atten­tion to what is and we decide by rely­ing on what evolves from with­in the hearts and minds of our people.
      3. We pay atten­tion to what is and we decide by rely­ing on objec­tive and detached analysis.
      4. We pay atten­tion to what might be and we decide by rely­ing on objec­tive and detached analysis.
   3. The peo­ple with the most pow­er and influ­ence in the organization:
      1. Are both con­trib­u­tors and team play­ers, who are an essen­tial part of the team. Peo­ple like work­ing with them.
      2. Are experts or spe­cial­ists, who have the most knowl­edge about some­thing important.
      3. Are charis­mat­ic, can inspire oth­ers, and are good at moti­vat­ing oth­ers to devel­op their potential.
      4. Have the title and posi­tion that gives them the right and author­i­ty to exer­cise pow­er and influence.
   4. In our orga­ni­za­tion, “suc­cess” means:
      1. Syn­er­gy. By team­ing up with one anoth­er and with our cus­tomers, we accom­plish what we are after.
      2. Growth. Suc­cess means help­ing oth­ers more ful­ly real­ize their potential.
      3. Supe­ri­or­i­ty. Suc­cess means that the orga­ni­za­tion is the best, offer­ing supe­ri­or val­ue. The orga­ni­za­tion is the “state of the art” in all that it does.
      4. Dom­i­nance. Suc­cess means hav­ing more con­trol than any­one else. Com­plete suc­cess would be for the orga­ni­za­tion to be the only game in town.
   5. In our orga­ni­za­tion, lead­er­ship means:
      1. Being a cat­a­lyst. Lead­ers cul­ti­vate peo­ple. They cre­ate con­di­tions in which peo­ple are inspired to ful­fill their own and oth­ers’ poten­tial. At the same time, lead­ers build com­mit­ment to the organization.
      2. Set­ting stan­dards and work­ing hard to get peo­ple to achieve more. Lead­ers are intense taskmas­ters, who always chal­lenge work­ers to be better.
      3. Build­ing a team that will work well togeth­er. Lead­ers are coach­es. They behave as first-among-equals. They strive to rep­re­sent the peo­ple in the organization.
      4. Author­i­ty. Lead­ers are reg­u­la­tors and call the shots. They are com­mand­ing, firm, and defin­i­tive. What they say goes.
   6. When we wor­ry about some­thing in the orga­ni­za­tion, it is usu­al­ly about:
      1. Lack of uni­ty. We wor­ry most about the team being bro­ken up or alien­at­ing our cus­tomers. We wor­ry about a lack of trust among ourselves.
      2. Vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty. We wor­ry most about being in a posi­tion where oth­ers have more pow­er or mar­ket share than we do.
      3. Stag­na­tion. We wor­ry most about fail­ing to progress, sim­ply exist­ing from day to day, or even going backwards.
      4. Los­ing. We wor­ry most about being also-rans or hav­ing our rep­u­ta­tion harmed because we could­n’t deliv­er effectively.
   7. Our orga­ni­za­tion’s over­all man­age­ment style is best described as:
      1. Enabling. Empow­er­ing. Com­mit­ment oriented.
      2. Chal­leng­ing. Goal ori­ent­ed. Very ratio­nal and analytical.
      3. Pre­scrip­tive. Method­i­cal. Pol­i­cy and pro­ce­dure oriented.
      4. Demo­c­ra­t­ic. High­ly rela­tion­al. High­ly participative.
   8. The essen­tial role of the indi­vid­ual employ­ee in our orga­ni­za­tion is to:
      1. Per­form accord­ing to pol­i­cy and pro­ce­dure. To meet the require­ments of the job as outlined.
      2. Be an expert. To be the best in your spe­cial­ty or area of tech­ni­cal expertise.
      3. Col­lab­o­rate. To be a team player.
      4. Be all you can be. To change, devel­op, and grow. To be com­mit­ted to the orga­ni­za­tion and its purposes.
   9. What counts most in the orga­ni­za­tion is:
      1. Evolv­ing. Real­iz­ing greater poten­tial. Ful­fill­ing commitments.
      2. Accom­plish­ing it togeth­er. Being able to say “we did it together”.
      3. Win­ning. Being rec­og­nized as the best com­peti­tor around.
      4. Not los­ing. Keep­ing what we’ve got.
   10. Which of the fol­low­ing best describes how you feel about work­ing in your organization:
       1. Things are no non­sense and restrained.
       2. Peo­ple are able to count on one another.
       3. Things are rather intense. I feel like I have to be on my toes all the time.
       4. This is a car­ing and “spir­it­ed” place. I feel supported.
   11. What counts most in the orga­ni­za­tion is:
       1. Com­mu­ni­ty.
       2. Secu­ri­ty.
       3. Ful­fill­ment.
       4. Mer­it.
   12. Which of the fol­low­ing best describes the pri­ma­ry way deci­sions are made in the organization?
       1. We pay close atten­tion to our val­ues. We empha­size the fit between our val­ues and how close we are to real­iz­ing them. Our deci­sion-mak­ing process cen­ters on the con­gru­ence between our val­ues or pur­pos­es and what we have put into practice.
       2. We pay close atten­tion to our con­cepts and stan­dards. We empha­size the fit between our the­o­ret­i­cal goals and the extent to which we achieve them. Our deci­sion-mak­ing process cen­ters on how sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly our con­cep­tu­al goals are achieved.
       3. We empha­size what the orga­ni­za­tion needs. Our deci­sion-mak­ing process cen­ters on the objec­tives of the orga­ni­za­tion and on what we need from each func­tion with­in the organization.
       4. We empha­size tap­ping into the expe­ri­ences of one anoth­er. Our deci­sion-mak­ing process cen­ters on ful­ly using our col­lec­tive expe­ri­ences and push­ing for consensus.
   13. Over­all, life inside our orga­ni­za­tion is:
       1. Intel­lec­tu­al­ly com­pet­i­tive, rig­or­ous, and intense.
       2. Spon­ta­neous, inter­ac­tive, and free and easy.
       3. Objec­tive, order­ly, and serious.
       4. Sub­jec­tive, ded­i­cat­ed, and purposeful.
   14. In gen­er­al, our atti­tude toward mis­takes is:
       1. We tend to min­i­mize the impact of mis­takes and do not wor­ry too much about them. Peo­ple who make mis­takes should be giv­en anoth­er chance.
       2. We pay atten­tion to the kind of mis­take. If the mis­take can be quick­ly fixed, we go ahead and fix it. If the mis­take caus­es a func­tion to get into trou­ble or could cause the orga­ni­za­tion to become vul­ner­a­ble, we mar­shal all our resources to fix it as quick­ly as pos­si­ble. Mis­takes that affect the orga­ni­za­tion as a whole could get some­one in trouble.
       3. Mis­takes are near­ly taboo. We don’t like them. A per­son who makes mis­takes is looked down upon.
       4. Mis­takes are inevitable, but we man­age by pick­ing up the pieces and mak­ing the nec­es­sary cor­rec­tions before they grow into big­ger problems.
   15. Con­cern­ing con­trol, which of the fol­low­ing is most emphasized?
       1. Con­cepts and ideas. We con­trol every­thing that is crit­i­cal toward achiev­ing or pre­serv­ing our supe­ri­or­i­ty in the marketplace.
       2. Every­thing crit­i­cal to keep­ing us work­ing togeth­er in the orga­ni­za­tion and retain­ing close ties with our customers.
       3. Just about every­thing. Get­ting and keep­ing con­trol is cen­tral to what the orga­ni­za­tion is and does.
       4. As lit­tle as pos­si­ble. We are put off by the notion of con­trol. We pre­fer to leave things up to the com­mit­ment and good will of our people.
   16. The essen­tial nature of work in the orga­ni­za­tion emphasizes:
       1. Indi­vid­u­als do all three (choic­es)
       2. Spe­cial­ists. Indi­vid­u­als stay in their tech­ni­cal or oth­er spe­cial­ty. Func­tions are chan­neled into the ser­vice of specialties.
       3. Func­tion­al­ists. Indi­vid­u­als stay with­in their func­tion. Spe­cial­ties are sub­or­di­nate to the ser­vice of functions.
       4. Gen­er­al­ists. Indi­vid­u­als move in and out of numer­ous func­tions and specialties.
   17. The peo­ple who pri­mar­i­ly get pro­mot­ed in the orga­ni­za­tion are:
       1. Peo­ple who can han­dle respon­si­bil­i­ty and who want it. We don’t use the word “pro­mo­tion”.
       2. Gen­er­al­ists. They must also be capa­ble peo­ple who are easy to work with.
       3. Those who know the most about their area of exper­tise and have demon­strat­ed their competence.
       4. Those who have per­formed con­sis­tent­ly well in their func­tion for many years and have demon­strat­ed that they can seize author­i­ty and get things done.
   18. The com­pen­sa­tion sys­tem in the orga­ni­za­tion is most sim­i­lar to which of the following?
       1. Our com­pen­sa­tion sys­tem is high­ly struc­tured. The larg­er your role and func­tion in the orga­ni­za­tion, the more mon­ey you make.
       2. We empha­size fair and equi­table pay for all. We also empha­size the long-term per­spec­tive. We plow a lot of mon­ey back into the orga­ni­za­tion to ensure con­tin­ued growth and suc­cess, so per­son­al finan­cial com­pen­sa­tion tends to be sec­ondary to oth­er more impor­tant matters.
       3. Our com­pen­sa­tion is high­ly indi­vid­ual and incen­tive ori­ent­ed. Unique­ly capa­ble peo­ple who are rec­og­nized experts can make a lot of money.
       4. Our com­pen­sa­tion is tied pri­mar­i­ly to team effort. If the whole orga­ni­za­tion does well, we share in the wealth. If the whole orga­ni­za­tion does poor­ly, we all sacrifice.
   19. Which of the fol­low­ing best describes our orga­ni­za­tion’s pri­ma­ry approach in deal­ing with customers?
       1. We empha­size uplift­ing and enrich­ing our cus­tomers. We con­cen­trate on real­iz­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ties and poten­tial of our cus­tomers more fully.
       2. We empha­size gain­ing the great­est mar­ket share that we can get. We would like to be the only game in town for our customers.
       3. We empha­size offer­ing supe­ri­or val­ue to our cus­tomers. We try to pro­vide state-of-the-art goods or ser­vices to our customers.
       4. Part­ner­ship. We team up with our cus­tomers. We want to be able to say “We did it together”.
   20. Which phrase best describes our organization?
       1. “We are the best at what we do.”
       2. “We believe in what we are doing, we make a com­mit­ment, and we real­ize unlim­it­ed potential.”
       3. “Unit­ed we stand, divid­ed we fall.”
       4. “We are the biggest at what we do.”

Answers inter­pre­ta­tion:

	Con­trol	Col­lab­o­ra­tion	Com­pe­tence	Cul­ti­va­tion
1	a	b	c	d
2	d	b	a	c
3	b	c	d	a
4	c	a	d	b
5	a	d	b	c
6	c	d	a	b
7	d	c	b	a
8	c	a	b	d
9	b	d	a	c
10	c	b	d	a
11	a	b	c	d
12	c	d	a	b
13	c	a	b	d
14	d	b	c	a
15	c	b	a	d
16	a	c	b	d
17	b	a	c	d
18	c	d	b	a
19	c	a	d	b
20	c	d	b	a

Strengths: It empha­sizes strengths and devel­op­ment of strength. When suc­cess­ful, is sta­ble and strong. It is very effec­tive at planning. It does a very good job at build­ing and imple­ment­ing sys­tems, poli­cies and procedures. It does well in spot­ting prob­lems and solv­ing them, because of vigilance. Is very good at get­ting pro­pri­etary mar­kets, tech­nolo­gies and processes. It pro­vides peo­ple with short and long term finan­cial stability. It is order­ly and pre­dictable. Peo­ple feel safe. Expec­ta­tion, roles and jobs are clear. It empha­size on what’s working. It does­n’t tol­er­ate surprises. Deci­sion mak­ing is con­ser­v­a­tive and high­ly realistic. Peo­ple gain high func­tion­al exper­tise in their roles. It gets and keeps con­trol. If suc­cess­ful it dom­i­nates the market. It is well-organized. Work and results are close­ly monitored. Things are usu­al­ly clear-cut and unam­bigu­ous. Peo­ple know what is expect­ed from them. When kept lean and mean, it is very effec­tive in mobi­liz­ing deci­sive actions.

Weak­ness­es: In excess, it overem­pha­sizes try­ing to con­trol and dom­i­nate. This affects com­pet­i­tive behaviour. When things don’t go as planned, dis­trust and para­noia escalate. It may fos­ter too much com­pli­ance and a ten­den­cy to dis­tort infor­ma­tion as peo­ple don’t like to give boss­es bad news. Author­i­tar­i­an lead­ers sti­fle dif­fer­ing judg­ments and get told what they want to hear. Inno­va­tion is low. Inno­va­tion occurs more on finan­cial and func­tion­al aspects. Is prone to treat peo­ple in an arro­gant manner. It fos­ters peo­ple specialization. It is imper­son­al. There is lit­tle fam­i­ly feeling. It is hard to dis­agree and to voice conflicts. In excess, it does­n’t fos­ter col­lab­o­ra­tion between people. Exces­sive con­trol leads to ignor­ing or dic­tat­ing to customers. In excess, it takes out the fun of working. It ignores possibilities. In excess, it becomes inflex­i­ble and rigid. In excess, changes are quick­ly reject­ed. Sta­tus quo is protected. If too intense, peo­ple feel manip­u­lat­ed and coerced. In excess, peo­ple will del­e­gate respon­si­bil­i­ty upwards and will refrain from tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for results. Infor­ma­tion flow between func­tions is restricted. Good ideas from low­er lev­els are lost. It is prone to bureaucracy. In excess, it tends to neglect exter­nal envi­ron­ment (com­peti­tors, mar­ket­place etc)

Strengths: It is nat­u­ral­ly effec­tive in build­ing diver­si­ty and conflict. Peo­ple ded­i­ca­tion is high. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion is open, free and direct. It is effec­tive in build­ing, devel­op­ing and uti­liz­ing teams. Cohe­sion and coör­di­na­tion are prevalent. Peo­ple treat each oth­er in a sen­si­tive and care­ful manner. When effec­tive, syn­er­gy is accom­plished inter­nal­ly and with customers. Peo­ple work togeth­er and build on each oth­er’s skills and capabilities. Peo­ple typ­i­cal­ly help one anoth­er out. When suc­cess­ful, it does a good job in part­ner­ing with customers. It is good in form­ing alliances with oth­er organizations. It is usu­al­ly egal­i­tar­i­an and demo­c­ra­t­ic in nature. Trust is prevalent. It is ver­sa­tile and adaptive. It lis­tens to people. Par­tic­i­pa­tive man­age­ment thrives. Employ­ees often have a sense of per­son­al pride in the organization. It fos­ters indi­vid­ual tal­ent and gen­er­al­ist capabilities. Tasks and func­tions are integrated. Con­flict and dif­fer­ences are usu­al­ly well managed. Mon­e­tary rewards are often generous.

Weak­ness­es: In excess, peo­ple become to friend­ly to each oth­er. They don’t hold each oth­er account­able. Per­for­mance is decreasing. It is prone to short-term. In excess, it becomes overcompromising. In extreme, it is prone to lais­sez-faire management. If care­less, it fails to rec­og­nize indi­vid­ual mer­it and fos­ters medi­oc­rity. Indi­vid­ual per­form­ers might lose motivation. It inclines toward neglect­ing planning. It grav­i­tates toward group think­ing. Peo­ple might refrain from dissenting. In times of dif­fi­cul­ty it has a hard time imple­ment­ing firm decisions. It is at dis­ad­van­tage when com­pet­ing with ruth­less competitors. With­out a clear focus, it gets over­com­mit­ted and goes off in too many directions. In excess, it is over­adap­tive and lets the envi­ron­ment influ­ence it.

Strengths: It has high per­for­mance standards. It has high con­ti­nu­ity of service. Insti­tu­tion­al wis­dom and its preser­va­tion are important. It offers con­sid­er­able tech­ni­cal expertise. Great achieve­ments come from this cul­ture — inno­va­tion, new tech­nol­o­gy and products. It is goal and results oriented. You can’t go wrong with its prod­ucts and/or services. It is future ori­ent­ed and pos­si­bil­i­ty oriented. It is a cre­ative and excit­ing place of work. It is visionary. It puts much more on research and devel­op­ment than oth­er cultures. It places a high val­ue on professionalism. It empha­size mer­it and demon­strat­ed performance. Dis­ci­pline is present and emphasized. It is an effi­cient and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty ori­ent­ed culture. It val­ues craftsmanship. Reward sys­tem is incen­tive oriented. It accords a great impor­tance to strat­e­gy and planning. Deci­sion mak­ing is thor­ough, con­sid­ered and systematic. An indi­vid­ual can stand out. It is good at adapt­ing or changing. Ongo­ing train­ing and edu­ca­tion are prevalent.

Weak­ness­es: In excess, it leads to tech­ni­cal and expert tan­gents. The orga­ni­za­tion slips in the direc­tion that lack via­bil­i­ty or pragmatism. It los­es sight of human ele­ment and gets peo­ple for grant­ed. Per­son­al con­cerns are overlooked. Val­ues and sub­jec­tive view are prone to be ignored. Peo­ple may over­plan or overanalyze. It is too emo­tion­al­ly controlled. In excess, it gets so involved in the world of ideas that it fails to appre­ci­ate the real world. It risks con­fus­ing the mod­el with the real world. Peo­ple feel that lead­er­ship is nev­er sat­is­fied and they always underperform. It is too tough on peo­ple, too much the taskmaster. Win­ning takes too much prominence. In the extreme, win-lose behav­ior goes on. It advis­es against col­lab­o­ra­tion because indi­vid­ual mer­it may be blurred. If over­done, peo­ple feel over­ly pres­sured, over­worked and stressed out. Capa­ble peo­ple who are not so good in com­mu­ni­ca­tion feel unappreciated. In excess, makes peo­ple feel insecure. Gen­er­al­ists are not encour­aged, nor developed.

Strengths: It does a good job of build­ing com­mit­ment and ded­i­ca­tion among people. It makes peo­ple feel cared for, nur­tured and special. It offers great oppor­tu­ni­ties for per­son­al growth and development. It val­ues peo­ple aspi­ra­tions and hopes. It val­ues creativity. When effec­tive, trust is abun­dant. Peo­ple feel accept­ed for who they are. Res­o­lu­tion and deter­mi­na­tion come naturally. It val­ues and nour­ish­es diver­si­ty and differences. When effec­tive, indi­vid­ual tal­ent is more utilized. It is amenable to change and adaptation. It is inclined to be social­ly responsible. Peo­ple feel inspired and enlivened. It strong­ly encour­ages self-expres­sion. Empow­er­ment is natural. It places a high val­ue on train­ing and education. Peo­ple can make mis­takes and not be punished. Opti­mism and pos­i­tivism prevail. It can make great con­tri­bu­tions to peo­ple, com­mu­ni­ties and society.

Weak­ness­es: In excess, it lacks direc­tion and focus. In excess, too many things do not get finished. Tak­en to extreme, peo­ple become moral­is­tic and over­ly judgmental. It is prone to sweep­ing prob­lems under the rug. It is prone to have a hard time in coör­di­nat­ing peo­ple and activities. It is prone toward play­ing favorites. It is prone toward inef­fec­tive­ness when in com­pet­i­tive sit­u­a­tions, because is too com­mit­ted to good will. Peo­ple try too hard for change and new­ness, chang­ing things when not necessary. Hard facts may get ignored. Peo­ple make too many delays because too many choices. Peo­ple try too hard for per­fect solu­tions. Too much idealism. It is prone to inefficiency. Details are eas­i­ly overlooked. In excess, peo­ple are too sentimental. Peo­ple let inten­tion pre­vail too much, affect­ing per­for­mance and results. Peo­ple feel they nev­er make real and last­ing contributions. Peo­ple get burned out and over­bur­dened because cul­ture might be too compelling. Peo­ple are too ori­ent­ed against con­trol, result­ing in inat­ten­tive­ness to areas that need control. Some ideas and ini­tia­tive out­live their use­ful­ness, but are not discontinued.

This is a fig­ure that explains the under­ly­ing pat­tern of the four cultures.

Strate­gic focus

Cul­ture	Def­i­n­i­tion of success	Way to success	Approach with cus­tomers and constituents
Control	Dom­i­nance, being the biggest	Get and keep control	Con­trol­ling The only game in town
Collaboration	Syn­er­gy	Put a col­lec­tion of peo­ple togeth­er, build a team, engen­der their pos­i­tive rela­tion­ships and charg­ing them with ful­ly using one anoth­er as resources.	Part­ner­ing, doing it together
Com­pe­tence	Supe­ri­or­i­ty, being the best	Cre­ate an orga­ni­za­tion that has the high­est lev­el of capa­bil­i­ty and com­pe­tence pos­si­ble and cap­i­tal­ize on that com­pe­tence. Pur­sue excellence.	Offer the most supe­ri­or val­ue; noth­ing else com­pares, one of a kind, state of the art
Cul­ti­va­tion	Fuller real­iza­tion of poten­tial growth	Cre­ate and pro­vide the con­di­tions where­by peo­ple with­in the orga­ni­za­tion can grow, devel­op and strive to accom­plish the high­est order pur­pos­es possible.	Real­ize poten­tial and pos­si­bil­i­ty, fulfillment

Lead­er­ship and man­age­ment focus

Cul­ture	Lead­er­ship focus	Man­age­ment style
Control	Authoritative/directing Main­tain power Conservative/cautious Commanding Firm/assertive Definitive Tough-minded Shot caller Realistic	Method­i­cal Systematic Careful Conservative Pol­i­cy and pro­ce­dure oriented Task driven Impersonal Prescriptive Objective
Collaboration	Team builder Coach First among equals Participative Representative Integrator Trust builder Com­mit­ment builder Realistic Ensure uti­liza­tion of diversity Bring in the right mix of talent	Par­tic­i­pa­tive Collegial Democratic Relational Supportive Peo­ple driven Personal Emotional Adaptive Informal Trusting
Com­pe­tence	Stan­dard setter Archi­tect of system Visionary Taskmaster Assertive, con­vinc­ing persuader Set exact­ing expectations Stretch people/Push limits Recruit the most competent Incentivizer Empha­size what’s possible Chal­lenge subordinates	Task dri­ven Objective Rational/Analytical Intense Challenging Efficient Impersonal MBO/MBR in nature Hard to satisfy Formal Emotionless
Cul­ti­va­tion	Cat­a­lyst Cultivator/harvester Empower/enable people Potentializer Com­mit­ment builder Inspire/enliven people Promoter/Motivator Steward Mak­er of meaning Appeal to com­mon vision Fos­ter self-expression	Peo­ple drive Personal Relaxed Emotional Attentive Promotive Nurturant Humanistic Enabling/empowering Purposive Committed

Struc­tur­al focus

Cul­ture	Orga­ni­za­tion­al form	Role of the employee	Task focus
Control	Hier­ar­chy	Com­pli­ance Adhere to role requirements Functionalist Actualizer Serve the func­tion­al pur­suit of the organization Be realistic Be useful Fol­low directives	Func­tion­al­ist Indi­vid­u­als stay with­in a function Spe­cial­ties chan­neled into ser­vice of functions
Collaboration	Group, clus­ter	Col­lab­o­rate. Be a team player Con­tribute to the whole effort Uti­lize oth­ers as resources Actualizer Hon­or diversity Com­mit­ment to the whole organization Iden­ti­fy with the organization Take initiative Generalist	Gen­er­al­ist Indi­vid­u­als serve in numer­ous functions
Com­pe­tence	Matrix, adhoc­ra­cy	Be the best at what you do Be an expert Advance knowledge Be creative Be a possibilizer Serve the con­cep­tu­al and the­o­ret­i­cal pur­suit of the company Func­tion independently Demon­strate competence Specialist	Spe­cial­ist Indi­vid­u­als stay in tech­ni­cal specialty Func­tions chan­neled in ser­vice of specialties
Cul­ti­va­tion	Wheel-like, cir­cu­lar, lattice	Be cre­ative Express yourself Be will­ing to change, grow and develop Be a possibilizer Be all you can be Real­ize your potential Coöperate Believe in what the orga­ni­za­tion believes Be committed Be versatile	All three above Indi­vid­u­als do all three

Pow­er focus

Cul­ture	Nature of power	Approach to deci­sion making	Approach to man­ag­ing change
Control	Role, posi­tion, title	Very thourough Methodical Detached Impersonal Push for opti­mal solution Push for certainity Prescriptive Cause to effect For­mu­la oriented Very objective	Man­date it Resis­tance to change
Collaboration	Rela­tion­ships	Par­tic­i­pa­tive Collegial Democratic Con­sen­sus oriented Emotional Experimental Personal/interpersonal Peo­ple driven Organic/evolutionary Subjective Trusting	Team calls for change Open to change
Com­pe­tence	Exper­tise	Very ana­lyt­i­cal Objective Scientific Detached Impersonal Efficient Rational Prin­ci­ple and law oriented For­mu­la oriented For­mal logic Emotionless	Achieve­ment goals dri­ve change Open to change
Cul­ti­va­tion	Charis­ma	Pur­po­sive Peo­ple driven Organic/evolutionary Very subjective Emotional Committed Participative Dynamic Personal/interpersonal Adaptive Informal	Embrace/assume change Change is automatic

Rela­tion­ship focus

Cul­ture	Key norms	Cli­mate
Control	Cer­tain­ty Systematism Objectivity Order Stability Standardization Utility Realism Discipline Predictability Accumulation	Seri­ous Realistic Matter-of-fact No nonsense Low-key Air of secrecy Restrained Formal Impersonal Steady, reg­u­lat­ed pace Unemotional
Collaboration	Syn­er­gy Egalitarianism Diversity Unit­ed we stand, divid­ed we fall Peo­ple interaction Involvement Harmony Realism Pragmatism Complementarity Spontaneity	Har­mo­nious Personal Spontaneous Work hard/play hard Camaraderie Can do Busy pace Emotional Open/free and easy Live­ly give-and-take Trusting
Com­pe­tence	Pro­fes­sion­al­ism Meritocracy Pur­sue excellence Creativity Con­tin­u­ous improvement Com­pe­ti­tion for its own sake Craftsmanship Don’t rest on your laurels Efficiency Autonomy Accuracy	Com­pet­i­tive Intense pace Unemotional Impersonal Serious Professional Rigorous Prideful Spartan Rational Formal
Cul­ti­va­tion	Growth and development Humanism Faith Commitment/dedication Involvement Creativity Purpose Let things evolve Free­dom to make mistakes Shoot for the stars Subjectivity Val­ues are paramount	Lively/magnetic Committed Spirited Personal Emotional Coöperative Relaxed and fast paced Open Informal Compassionate Caring Giving/generous

Orga­ni­za­tion­al con­tent: what orga­ni­za­tion pays atten­tion to

In an actu­al­i­ty cul­ture the orga­ni­za­tion pays atten­tion to:

• Con­crete, tan­gi­ble reality
• Facts
• What occurred in the past and what occurs now
• Actu­al experience
• What can be seen, heard, touched, weight­ed and measured
• Prac­ti­cal­i­ty and utility

The con­tent of a pos­si­bil­i­ty cul­ture is:

• Insights
• Imag­ined alternatives
• What might occur in the future
• Ideals/beliefs
• Aspi­ra­tions
• Nov­el­ty
• Innovation/creativity
• The­o­ret­i­cal con­cepts and frameworks
• Under­ly­ing mean­ing or relationships

Orga­ni­za­tion­al process: how the orga­ni­za­tion decides

The process of imper­son­al cul­tures is:

• Detached
• Sys­tem, pol­i­cy and pro­ce­dure oriented
• For­mu­la oriented
• Sci­en­tif­ic
• Objec­tive
• Prin­ci­ple and law oriented
• For­mal
• Emo­tion­less
• Pre­scrip­tive

The process of per­son­al cul­tures is:

• Peo­ple driven
• Organic/evolutionary/dynamic
• Par­tic­i­pa­tive
• Sub­jec­tive
• Infor­mal
• Open-end­ed
• Impor­tant-to-peo­ple oriented
• Emo­tion­al

Cul­tur­al opposites

Com­pe­tence vs Collaborative

Con­trol vs Cultivation

Step 1: Deter­mine your core culture
Use the questionnaire.

Step 2: Cap­ture your cul­ture strengths
Use strengths and weak­ness­es of each culture.

Step 3: Cre­ate an analy­sis group
Gath­er 8–10 peo­ple who know the orga­ni­za­tion well and who typ­i­fy its struc­ture. Ask this group to sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly ana­lyze the orga­ni­za­tion elements.

Step 4: Deter­mine your core cul­ture’s lev­el of integration
Answer the fol­low­ing questions:

• Where are the ele­ments of your orga­ni­za­tion incon­sis­tent, giv­en the nature of your core culture?
• Where do you behave in a man­ner that is incon­gru­ent with your core culture?
• Where do we give our­selves mixed mes­sages? We are this type of core cul­ture, but what are we demand­ing from peo­ple that is incon­gru­ent with our core culture?
• Where do we belie the nature of our core culture?
• Where are we at cross-pur­pos­es with one anoth­er? Where are we uncoordinated?
• Are we aligned with our nat­ur­al and auto­mat­ic def­i­n­i­tion of success?
• Do we have a sub­sidiary that has a dif­fer­ent core cul­ture from ours? Are we try­ing to make it into our own image?
• Where are we try­ing to be all things to all peo­ple? Where are we buy­ing into fads that are real­ly ele­ments of anoth­er core cul­ture? Are we try­ing to insti­tute qual­i­ties, approach­es or process­es that are incon­gru­ent with our core cul­ture, but which every­one is tout­ing as the best thing to do?
• Where do we lack inter­nal harmony?
• Where are we try­ing to have our orga­ni­za­tion­al cake and eat it too?
• Where do we keep going on tangents?
• Where do we lose concentration?
• What is present with­in our orga­ni­za­tion that does not fit? What do we have that does­n’t belong? What keeps get­ting in the way of our core culture?
• Giv­en our core cul­ture, is our way with cus­tomers and con­stituents the same or par­al­lel to our way internally?

Step 5: Deter­mine your core cul­ture’s degree of wholeness
Answer the fol­low­ing questions:

• Giv­en our core cul­ture, where are we incomplete?
• What is miss­ing that belongs in our core culture?
• What don;t we have oper­at­ing that is need­ed in our core culture?
• What more do we need to do?
• Where do we lack uni­ty? What has been bro­ken apart that needs to be put back together?
• What is dam­aged or in dis­re­pair? What is dis­as­sem­bled that needs to be reassembled?
• What are we omit­ting out­right or decid­ing not to do?
• What knowl­edge, skills, atti­tudes and moti­va­tions do we need?
• Giv­en our cul­ture, what is unfinished?

Step 6: Deter­mine your core cul­ture’s degree of balance
Answer the fol­low­ing questions:

• Giv­en our core cul­ture, where are we out of balance?
• Where are we oper­at­ing in excess? Where are we over­do­ing things? Where have we allowed things to go too far?
• What are unnec­es­sar­i­ly overem­pha­siz­ing or underemphasizing?
• Where are we exag­ger­at­ing our core cul­ture’s nat­ur­al strengths?
• Giv­en our core cul­ture, where are we too greedy?
• Where are we tak­ing shortcuts?
• What spe­cif­ic ele­ments from oth­er core cul­tures do we need to incor­po­rate into our orga­ni­za­tion to be in bal­ance and more effective?
• Where are we refus­ing to allow nat­ur­al and nec­es­sary ten­sions in our orga­ni­za­tion to con­tin­ue? Where are we impos­ing one way of doing some­thing when we should be man­ag­ing in more than one way?
• Where do we lack stability?
• Where we are out of proportion?
• Where do we lack reciprocity?
• Where have we lost our adaptability?
• Where do we need more equality?