Synergizing the Competing Values Framework and the Six-Box Model

Synergizing the Competing Values Framework and the Six-Box Model This prĂŠcis suggests that Cameron and Quinn's (2011) competing values framework and Weisbord's (1976) Six-Box Model can be leveraged in concert to make organizations more effective.

Olivier Serrat 10/11/2017

1 The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) is an intergovernmental learning, knowledge, and enabling center—founded in 1983 and located in Lalitpur, Nepal—whose mission is to enable sustainable and resilient mountain development for improved and equitable livelihoods through knowledge and regional cooperation in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. That region extends 3,500 kilometers over all or part of eight countries: it is the source of 10 large Asian river systems and provides water, ecosystem services, and the basis for livelihoods to a population of around 210 million people. The basins of the 10 rivers provide water to 1.3 billion people, a fifth of the world's population.

Competing Values at ICIMOD Cameron and Quinn's (2011) competing values framework—one of several quantitative diagnostic approaches to assessing organizational culture—revolves around six questions that test an organization's predilection for (i) internal focus and integration or external focus and differentiation; and (ii) stability and control or flexibility and discretion. The questions relate to dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organization glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. Apropos each question, 100 points must be divided among four possible, non-exclusionary answers depending on the extent to which each is felt to adequately describe an organization (in an assessor's opinion).1 In the spirit of inquiry, I explored ICIMOD's culture archetypes by inputting data into an OCAI spreadsheet: the exercise was inspired by a short visit I conducted in 2016.2 With respect to each of the 6 questions, my distribution of points suggested that the target organization is a hierarchy. (The three other typologies that OCAI helps make out from the two polarities mentioned above are clan, adhocracy, and market cultures). Copying verbatim from www.ocaionline.com/, "[A hierarchy is a formalized and structured workplace. Procedures direct what people do. Leaders are proud of efficiency-based coordination and organization. Keeping the organization functioning smoothly is most crucial. Formal rules and policies keep the organization together. The long-term goals are stability and results, paired with an efficient and smooth execution of tasks. Reliable delivery, continuous planning, and low cost define success.

The personnel management has to guarantee work and predictability" (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, (n.d.). To note, the distribution of points was not entirely oriented toward hierarchy (but it was significantly so): here and there, OCAI also revealed a modicum of market culture in 5 instances; a clan culture in 2 instances (one of which noteworthy); and an adhocracy culture in only 1 instance.

Specifically, the preliminary diagnosis of the culture of ICIMOD using OCAI (and its precise phraseology) implied that: • Dominant Characteristics. The organization is a very controlled and structured place.

Formal procedures generally govern what people do. (I ascribed 80 points to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture and 20 to the statement associated with a market culture.)

• Organizational Leadership. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency. (I ascribed 80 points 1

Toward this, an Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is available at www.ocai-online.com/. (OCAI spreadsheets can also be downloaded.)

2 It follows that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this précis are mine, with no guarantee of accuracy or completeness. Any other organization might have been selected: the idea was to explore how Cameron and Quinn's competing values framework and Weisbord's Six-Box Model might be leveraged in concert to make organizations more effective.

2

•

•

•

•

to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture and 20 to the statement associated with a market culture.)

Management of Employees. The management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships. (I ascribed 70 points to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture and 30 to the statement associated with a clan culture.)

Organization Glue. The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. (I ascribed 90 points to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture and 10 to the statement associated with a market culture.)

Strategic Emphases. The organization emphasizes permanence and stability.

Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important. (I ascribed 80 points to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture, 10 to the statement associated with a clan culture, and 10 to the statement associated with a market culture.)

Criteria of Success. The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency.

Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical. (I ascribed 80 points to the statement associated with a hierarchy culture, 10 to the statement associated with an adhocracy culture, and 10 to the statement associated with a market culture.)

So What?

Notwithstanding, bearing in mind also Schein's (2017) compelling doubts regarding the usefulness of surveys, it is hard to decide what to make of these "results" regarding ICIMOD. In accordance with my perceptions, that organization may be a hierarchy; but, so what? And, what next? Interpreted by the same or indeed any other person through other instruments, one might also describe it as a normative organization (Etzioni, 1975), a task culture (Handy, 1978), a support-oriented organization (Harrison, 1979), and a fragmented culture (Goffee & Jones, 1998). Then again, using Schein's (2017) three intraorganizational typologies (e.g., operator, engineer, and executive), the organization might be considered to evidence a dominant engineering subculture managed by a small executive subculture. For sure, therefore, OCAI will be most useful if—eschewing dogmatic judgment—one uses it to frame (a series of) in-house conversations about culture, preferably in combination with other instruments. (By the same token, the same applies to other instruments.) The questions in-house conversations about culture would ask include: • Are there opportunities for ICIMOD to accomplish its mission/goal(s)/objective(s) better?

• If so, how might its culture be changed?

• Might changes entail strengthening the current culture?

• Might changes entail changing the current culture to another?

• Or, more likely, might a practicable mix of cultures be preferred (and if so in which areas would one see the greatest need for change)?

With his five most important questions, Drucker (2008) challenged leaders to take a close look at the very heart of their organizations and what drives them: What is our mission? Who is our customer? What does the customer value? What are our results? What is our plan? Usefully, hence the earlier reference to in-house conversations, OCAI permits a distinction between current (labeled "Now") and future (labeled "Preferred") cultures, a preferred culture describing what respondents hope to have in the future. Not forgetting the need for multifarious investigations, a (mix of) culture that enables organizations to respond to Drucker's five

3 questions is what they should aim to develop; and, if OCAI (and other instruments) can take them there, this is ultimately where the real value of typologies lies.

Synergizing Cameron and Quinn's Competing Values Framework and Weisbord's SixBox Model Weisbord's (1976) Six-Box Model is a generic diagnostic tool that shines a light on both formal and informal systems in six key areas where things must work in internally consistent fashion; the model holds that the bigger the gap between systems the less effective the organization; the model underscores also the need to balance the six "boxes". In the spirit of inquiry, and with the same disclaimers made earlier, Serrat (2017) completed Weisbord's Six-Box Model for ICIMOD to draw a rough cognitive map of that organization; what follows summarizes the inferences I made.

Figure: Weisbord's Six-Box Model

Purposes

Relationships

Structure Leadership

Helpful Mechanisms

Rewards

Weisbord (1976) The key inferences in Serrat (2017) were: • Purpose. The fitness of ICIMOD's mission, meaning, the degree to which it is appropriate given the environment, can be questioned.3 What with global warming and the melting of glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region, the organization has a 3

The Hindu Kush Himalayan region contains the largest body of ice (17%) outside the Polar caps; but, the Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than anywhere else. In my opinion, there is tension in ICIMOD confining itself to local ambitions (that are still far from being achieved) in a region facing massive and irreversible damage from climate change; ICIMOD is uniquely placed and there is no other organization to champion action.

4

•

•

•

•

•

greater, more explicit role to play: but, it has not gathered the political impetus needed to do so (or perhaps even considered that it might play such a role). It is the perceived tension between "what is" and "what could be" that, in my opinion, fails to provide sufficient guidance to the organization's personnel and dampens worthy accomplishments across the organization's seven strategic goals.4 Structure. Changes to the organization's structure have been rational (if slow). A rare occurrence, the configuration actually matches what is (or might be) needed, except that the organization appears to purposely underplay performance. What work the organization conducts follows a predictable routine but takes a long time to accomplish, two years being the time its researchers spend on average to write-up the results of a small-scale project.

Relationships. The relationships between and among staff and management seem distant. Personnel appear unnecessarily tentative; managers give the impression they are careful not to tread on what turf is not theirs and are wont to deflate statements. The units tasked with performing tasks execute these with adequate resources; however, each tries to minimize interdependence and since all are part of the production process there ought to be built-in conflict.

Rewards. The organization should reward what findings, conclusions, and recommendations attract the widest attention to enrich policy and practice. But, its research seems supply-driven and thus perhaps only rarely meets demand: the corollary is likely to be that a good deal the organization's research falls on barren ground and so there can be no rationale for rewarding this or that.

Leadership. The organization is political. Its eight regional countries, two of them the largest in the world, probably vie for influence. From afar, a handful of countries offer directional advice and grant financing, taking care not to ruffle regional sensibilities. For leaders to act decisively in such conditions challenges the imagination (but is surely not impossible).

Helpful Mechanisms. The organization is well-equipped with helpful mechanisms, mostly formal. The more relevant consideration is that while helpful mechanisms can of course improve the inner workings of an organization they cannot inspire it when it must look elsewhere; they are impotent, perhaps even detrimental, where an organization must create value, not just appropriate it.

From the foregoing, without a theory, the places ICIMOD seems most deficient in relate to (i) purpose, (ii) relationships, (iii) rewards, and (iv) leadership. From these four perspectives, there is merit in pondering how Weisbord's Six-Box Model might inform consideration of a preferred 4

From competencies in the thematic areas of livelihoods, ecosystem services, water and air, and geospatial solutions, ICIMOD aims to deliver impacts in the six regional programs of adaptation and resilience building, transboundary landscapes, river basins and cryosphere, atmosphere, its Mountain Environment Regional Information System, and mountain knowledge and action networks. Specifically, the seven strategic results it is committed to attain are (i) widespread adoption of innovations and practices developed by the organization and its partners to adapt to change, leading to positive impacts for women, men, and children; (ii) significant advances in the generation and use of relevant data, knowledge, and analysis; (iii) significant advances made in approaches and knowledge that promote gender equality and inclusive development; (iv) significantly developed human and institutional capacity; (v) policies considerably influenced by the work of the organization and its partners; (vi) enhanced regional cooperation related to sustainable mountain development; and (vii) global recognition of the importance of mountains to ensure improved and resilient livelihoods and ecosystems.

5 culture per OCAI (and also show thereby how concern for culture would have enriched Weisbord's Six-Box Model):5 • Dominant Characteristics. The organization is a very controlled and structured place.

Formal procedures generally govern what people do. Considering the higher purpose the organization might (or perhaps should) strive to accomplish, a preferred culture might ascribe equal weight to adhocracy and market cultures. In consequence, the organization would become a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place and people would be willing to stick their necks out and take risks (adhocracy). The organization would also become very results-oriented: a major concern would be with getting the job done; people would be very competitive and achievement-oriented (market).

• Organizational Leadership. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency. Considering the higher purpose to which the organization might (or perhaps should) aspire, but bearing in mind that it is a research organization after all, a preferred culture might ascribe equal weight to clan and adhocracy cultures. In consequence, the organization's leadership would generally be considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing (clan).

The organization's leadership would also generally be considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking (adhocracy).

• Management of Employees. The management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships. To turn the organization so it might face the challenges of the 21st century in its areas of expertise, a preferred culture might be adhocracy. The management style in the organization would be characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness (adhocracy).

• Organization Glue. The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. To direct the management of employees toward adhocracy, a preferred culture might also need to be that of an adhocracy. The glue that would holds the organization together would be commitment to innovation and development and there would be an emphasis on being on the cutting edge (adhocracy).

• Strategic Emphases. The organization emphasizes permanence and stability.

Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important. Considering the higher purpose the organization might (or perhaps should) strive to accomplish, a preferred culture might ascribe equal weight to adhocracy and market cultures. In consequence, the organization would emphasize acquiring new resources and creating new challenges and trying new things and prospecting for opportunities would be valued (adhocracy).

The organization would also emphasize competitive actions and achievement; hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace would be dominant (market).

• Criteria of Success. The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency.

Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical. Again, considering the higher purpose to which the organization might (or perhaps should) aspire, but still bearing in mind that it is a research organization after all, a preferred culture might ascribe equal weight to clan and adhocracy cultures. In consequence, the organization would define success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people (clan). The organization would also define success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products; it would be a product leader and innovator (adhocracy).

5

To note again, the opening sentences reflect OCAI's phraseology in each instance.

6 Conclusion The preliminary diagnosis of the culture of ICIMOD using OCAI suggests that organization is basically a hierarchy with sprinklings of market, clan, and adhocracy cultures. To prepare the ground for a possible change of culture away from insufficiently productive hierarchy, this précis identifies questions that in-house conversations about culture in ICIMOD might raise and refers also to Drucker's (2008) five most important questions. Notably, the précis examines how Weisbord's Six-Box Model, which pays no attention to culture, might somehow complement Cameron and Quinn's (2011) competing values framework; above all, the exercise demonstrates the existence of synergies between the two; for the purposes of the case study, the exercise hints that, were ICIMOD inclined to have a more ambitious mission (to be specified of course), its preferred culture might need to be that of an adhocracy, here and there buttressed by a clan culture (2 instances) and a market culture (2 instances).

References Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and change organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Drucker, P. (2008). The five most important questions you will ever ask about your organization.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Handy, C. (1978). The gods of management. London, UK: Pan Books.

Harrison, R. (1979). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review, 57(5), 119–128.

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. (n.d.). Organizational culture assessment instrument online. Retrieved from https://www.ocai-online.com/ Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Serrat, O. (2017). Diagnosing the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.

Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Weisbord, M. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group and Organization Studies, 1 (4), 430–447.