Organisational Culture and Leadership

Both culture and leadership relate not so much to “what” is done but to “how” things are done. When culture and leadership are mentioned together, it is often in respect of change management and not always a positive citation: the leader often drives forward change only to have the best efforts thwarted by cultural constraints. To achieve change the leader therefore needs to pay attention to the current and desired organisational culture. So how can organisational culture be defined and how can it be changed?

Hofstede is well known for his work on national cultures; however he also performed extensive organisational research and accordingly identified six “dimensions” of organisational culture. These dimensions represent a continuum between two poles, neither of which is right or wrong. This easy-to-reference analysis is taken from “Think locally, act globally: cultural constraints in personnel management”, Hofstede in “MIR” Vol. 38, Issue 2, republished in Bertagni et al, “’Glocal’ working: Living and working across the world with cultural intelligence”, 2010, FrancoAngeli.

Here is a summary followed by my leadership-biased critique (“et alors”).

Dimensions of Organisational Culture

The author describes six different dimensions of organisational culture:

Process versus Results Orientated

The former are dominated by technical and bureaucratic routines; the latter by a common concern for outcomes.

Professional versus Parochial

Also known as cosmopolitan versus local, in the former the members identify with their profession; in the latter they derive their identity from the organisation in which they work.

Tightly versus Loosely Controlled

This dimension deals with the degree of formality and punctuality within the organisation (and can also to relate to the amount of discretion individuals have to carry out their tasks).

Pragmatic versus Normative

This describes the flexible or rigid way in dealing with the environment, in particular with customers.

Open versus Closed

This refers to the common style of internal and external communication and the ease with which outsiders and newcomers are admitted.

Job versus Employee Oriented

The former assumes responsibility for job performance and nothing more; the latter assumes responsibility for their employees’ well-being.

Et alors?

Further studies have shown that the first four of these dimensions mainly relate to what the organisation does. For example a fast moving consumer goods company is likely to be pragmatic and results orientated; a legal firm is likely to be “professional”; and so on and so forth. In Hofstede’s own terms these four dimensions principally relate to the “outer” layers of culture – the symbols (words, gestures and pictures); the heroes (exemplary models of the desired behaviours); and the rituals (collective activities considered socially essential). They do not necessarily relate to any “inner” values; however once the business is defined, the culture becomes ingrained and is very difficult to change. It is not simply a question of changing the business – collective habits have to be re-engineered and changing them is, according to Hofstede, “a top management task that cannot be delegated”.

Then there is one dimension which does relate to values (as well as the other cultural layers) but those values tend to reflect the cultural values of the nation in which the organisation is to be found. This is the “open” or “closed” dimension and has its origins in the national “norms” regarding the level of power-distance acceptance and “weak” or “strong” uncertainty avoidance. In terms of leadership and change management, there is not much that can be done regarding this dimension: it is something that has to be dealt with and potentially worked around.

The final dimension, “job” or “employee” orientation does not relate to what a company does and is not related to values; instead it is simply a practice to which members of the organisation have been accustomed without reference to any values (national or otherwise). It is potentially one of the easiest dimensions to change and can be done at any level in the organisation (as long as there is some sense of collective change). As mentioned at the outset, neither “pole” in the dimension is right or wrong: the “accent” is on how to balance the needs of the job with the needs of the employee; but leaders anywhere and everywhere can make this change tomorrow!