Four Organizational Culture Types

Here is a quick summary of each of the four types of organizational cultures based on a Haworth article I found interesting:

• Control: Typically large, bureaucratic corporations or government agencies. They also generally have a typical hierarchical organizational structure. Ex. Fast food chains, government, auto manufacturing companies
• Compete: Highly structured, yet also focused on relationships and outside transactions with suppliers, customers, etc. Think high pressure sales type organizations. Ex. General Electric & Jack Welch
•  Collaborate: Organizations are operated more like families and value cohesion and loyalty. Less formal organizational structure. Ex. Tom's of Maine
•  Create: Innovative and creative companies with a future focus. Tend to be entrepreneurial and profit from developing new technologies and ideas. Ex. Google

  

Where does your organization fit?

-          Is your organization flexible? Do you have any discretion in decision making? Is it dynamic? OR Do you find it more stable? Is it orderly? Is there a lot of control? Plot where you believe your organization to be along the flexible/focused line.

-          Is your organization focused internally? Is there a high degree of unity and integration? OR Do you find it more externally focused with more value placed on differentiation and even rivalry with competitors or in the market? Plot where you believe your organization to be along the internal/external line.

Where would you place your company? Where would you place your department or work group? No one type is better than any other, however it is worth the time to think about whether this is where you would like to be, and if you want to go even further with it, is it working for you/the organization?

I would love to hear your thoughts :)

More details available at: http://www.haworth.com/en-us/knowledge/workplace-library/Documents/Four-Organizational-Culture-%20Types_6.pdf, 8 May 2013

The Leadership Grid

Just thought I would share another interesting leadership theory with you ... well it's was interesting to me at least :) LOL

If you rated your teams concern for people with a number between 1-9, 1 being the worst and 9 being the best, what would that number be? Write it down.

If you rated your teams concern for results with a number between 1-9, 1 being the worst and 9 being the best, what would that number be? Write it down.

This will give you a set of numbers #,# for example 4,7 or 6,6

Find the corresponding location on the following grid.

Interesting, right? Everyone will have a different opinion of where they land on this grid depending on their own personal experiences, thoughts and beliefs but it does provide a useful tool for measuring how your team is performing.

Ok, so here's a few of my quick thoughts on each style.

• Impoverished Management: Neutral. Employees are often withdrawn. Not a good place to be...
• Country-Club Management: Creates artificial harmony. Everything looks good from the outside looking in, but is anything really getting accomplished?
• Authority-Compliance Management: Things are getting done, but often conflict is supressed and team members do not feel part of the group.
• Middle-of-the-Road Management: There is compromise and bargaining. The team is on the right track, but not yet functioning to it's highest capacity.
• Team Management: Ah... Mecca! What we all wish to attain someday :) There are strong relationships, effective problem solving, trust, commitment, accountability, high standards, etc. But interestingly this does not mean conflict free (perhaps a topic for another day...)

Where did your team land? Do you think that the leadership grid provides an accurate description of how your team is functioning? How can you work to improve that?

Lewin's Leadership Styles

I recently learned that there are basically three different approaches or leadership styles.

1.    Authoritarian/Autocratic: Think of the Godfather. You work for him. He is the boss and you do what he tells you.

2.    Participative/Democratic: More Mufasa from Lion King. He offers clear guidance, but allows the tribe to have input and integrates their ideas and suggestions.

3.    Delegative/Laissez-Faire: Also called “Free-Reign”. When the leader leaves decisions up to the group.

Which one do you think you respond best to? Which one do you think you are? Which one do you think you should be?

Before we jump right to it, lets take a little look at the pros and cons of each.

 

Authoritarian:

Pros	Cons
Clear direction/ expectations	Little or no input from the group
Useful when timeliness is an issue	Followers become passive and do not take initiative
Good when the leader has more information or expertise	Can be seen as bossy or dictatorial
	Less creative and sometimes poorer performance

Participative:

Pros	Cons
Offers guidance	Followers are less productive
Allows for input from followers	Not very timely
Leaders retain final say
Higher quality outcomes
More creative, motivational & engaging

Delegative:

Pros	Cons
Group decision making	No clear guidance
Good when the followers are the experts	Least productive
	Followers can become aggressive, discontent or hostile
	Sometimes responsibility for the outcome may default to the group

Immediately after learning about these styles my mind automatically went to that participative must be the best. But after some thought, maybe not... Can you imagine the military being run in a participative style? What a mess that would be. Obviously authoritarian fits that situation much better. Or, if by some strange twist of fate, I led a team a brain surgeons. Obviously they would have more expertise in the area of “brain surgeon-y” things than I do, not being a surgeon myself. I guess the moral of the story here is that leaders have to use all three leadership styles depending on the situation to be effective. They will likely have a natural tendency towards one and need to become for comfortable with the others to become the best leaders they can be.

To help you determine which style you tend to be check out: http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-leadershipquiz.htm

PS. Mine was particpative, what was yours?

Leadership Myths

Myths of Leadership (based on “306 Degree Leader” by John Maxwell)

1. the Position Myth: Leadership is a choice you make, not a place you sit

          Is there a co-worker who is your peer, or maybe even an employee, who you value and feel has contributed to your growth? Maybe that special someone is more of a leadership role model to you than the person who you report to based on the org chart. (Remember the management vs. leadership post in the last post J) .

2. the Destination Myth: when I get to the top, then I will learn to lead

          Could you just go out and run a marathon today? Probably not... it would take training right? Leadership is the same.

3. the Influence Myth: if I were on top, then people would follow me

          Ever had a boss who you couldn’t follow? The position just allows you the chance to lead. You still have to practise leadership over time to win people over.

4. the Inexperience Myth: when I get to the top, I’ll be in control

          Is the grass always greener on the other side? I think not. Moving up in the ranks presents its own set of new challenges. For example, do you think that big decision was truly made solely by your boss, or are there other factors at play such as his/her boss, other department decisions, outside influences.

5. the Freedom Myth: When I get to the top, I’ll no longer be limited

          Is the CEO really able to do whatever he/she wants? Of course not! Often the higher your rank in an organization, the more responsibility you have to more people. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me...    

6. the Potential Myth: I can’t reach my potential if I’m not the top leader

          Sounds a lot to me like “I could go to the gym/be more organized/eat healthier/etc. if I wanted to”. I believe you should try to be all you can be today without waiting for the perfect conditions (which likely won’t ever arise).

7. The All-or-Nothing Myth: if I can’t get to the top then I won’t lead

          Ever played board games/sports/etc. with someone who has an “If I can’t win, I won’t play” attitude? Leadership takes time, consistency and effort and if you’re not willing to try in out, maybe even have a few losses/failures, then how are you going to be successful when you get there?

I have to admit it, personally a lot of these things hit home for me while reading this book. I used to think that once I got to be a "insert whatever your dream title is here" then I would have it made. All my problems would dissapear and I would have achieved success. When considering these myths, they really started to make sense to me and I realized that what I really want is work towards is being a better me in my current role, obviously by growing my leadership skills, and have faith that the rest will follow. Life has a funny way of just working out sometimes don't you think?

Management vs. Leadership

In a department meeting a while back our Chief People Officer asked everyone in the room "Who here thinks they are a leader?" And to my surprise almost everyone in the room raised their hand (obviously I didn't)! I was thinking to myself "Wait a minute... I have no manager title and no group of employees I supervise, therefore how can I qualify myself as a leader?" However, as I looked around the room, I noticed that several of the people who did raise their hand were no different than me. So what was I missing?

I am lucky enough to have a great mentor at work and she encouraged me to think about that and with her encouragement, I enrolled in the Leadership Certificate at Red Deer College. What a great idea! These courses have really opened my eyes up to the idea that leadership and management are different and that I don't have to be a “manager” and have a fancy title to be a good leader. People can lead from any role within an organization.

What do you think the difference between management and leadership is? Here are some ideas loosely based on a discussion in the book "the 360 Degree Leader" by John C. Maxwell:

Management is:

-          A title given to someone

-          A process that must be followed

-          A formal chain of command

-          A position where the rules/policies/guidelines are laid out

Leadership is:

-          Something anyone can do, yet few people are good at

-          A process which is different for everyone based on their personal situation

-          Informal in nature

-          Has to be practiced and worked on, although some have more “natural” talent

-          Something that can take a long time to establish

This realization that management and leadership are different, was what they call an “ah-ha moment” for me! I don't think that I had ever seen management and leadership as separate things before. I used to think that the only way that I will ever grow is to get to the next level in my organization and become a manager; then I would learn how to be a leader. But based on this new information, I now know that I can work within the position that I have, which I love, to develop and use those leadership skills now, so that someday I will be prepared should I be lucky enough to have the chance to be a manager.

In this blog, I am going to be posting some updates on topics from the leadership certificate courses as well as interesting pieces from leadership books, and I am going to try and implement some of these lessons to my workplace and see how they fit “the real world”.

I hope you enjoy! Stay tuned…