energizing breakthrough performance

Matrix Management, Culture, and Resistance to Change

Author: ; Published: Feb 5, 2013; Category: Collaboration, Cross-Functional Teams, Matrix Management; Tags: ; No Comments»

The successful implementation of matrix management is accompanied by significant changes in organizational culture.  My working definition of organizational culture is what employees think and do when the boss isn’t looking.  Cultural changes cannot be dictated from on high although executive visions of desired cultural changes are important, in fact, essential to communicate throughout the organization as “air cover” for transformation. That said, real cultural change is a “ground war,” which happens when and only when significant changes in employee behavior accumulate. When changes in employee behavior take hold and reach a tipping point, cultural change momentum is achieved and thereafter tends to accelerate as late adopters and laggards end their resistance and get on board with the rest of the organization, at last convinced that the cultural change is an enduring one and not a “flavor of the month.”

 

There are numerous cultural shifts that are associated with successful implementation of matrix management and I won’t itemize all of them here.  That said, in many organizations the shifts include:

 

n      Adoption of a “one-firm concept” mindset which emphasizes the success of the organization as a whole rather than discrete components of the enterprise

 

n      Full embrace of horizontal accountability as well as vertical accountability, i.e., where  “dotted line” relationships take on equal importance with “solid line” relationships

 

n      Members of management learning to stay in their respective vertical or horizontal “swim lanes,” and coming to accept the basic matrix role dichotomy, whereby they no longer control both the horizontal and the vertical aspects of organizational life

 

n      Emphasis on solving multidisciplinary challenges at the lowest possible level in the hierarchy, prompting greater risk-taking within defined constraints rather than elevating all issues to the top a la “Mother May I?”

 

n      Horizontal management of alignment, multifunction synergy, and conscious prevention of fizzles, fumbles, and foibles when the baton is passed across the organization

 

n      Changes in manager and employee behavior whereby “dueling priorities” or “crunches” are identified and remedied promptly

 

And the list goes on.

 

In training and consulting to more than 70 clients who have adopted or are refining a matrix organization, I have sometimes encountered pockets of resistance to change, particularly in “strong culture” enterprises. Over the years, I have come to regard such resistance as a good thing.  To me, it means that the employee who is expressing reservations or complaints is mentally “trying on” new behaviors and like a good pair of new shoes, is finding that they may pinch a bit when first worn. The good news is that the employee is taking the change seriously and is trying to wrap their minds around it. To the extent that the employee finds these changes inconsistent with the behaviors that have brought them success thus far in their careers, there can be moments of apprehension and a higher degree of resistance. Expressions of resistance may be impolitic, but it is important to listen to the message more than critique its delivery. Akin to “growing pains,” some resistance is not only natural; it’s a positive sign that real change is taking hold. Don’t dismay: Managing the change process to convert the resistance to positive momentum for transformation makes all of the difference. 

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Print
  • email
  • blogmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooBuzz

Strategic Planning and Culture

Author: ; Published: Feb 4, 2013; Category: Collaboration, Strategic Planning; Tags: ; One Comment»

In a conversation with representatives of a for-profit professional services firm concerning an appropriate approach for developing a three-year strategic plan, the question of organizational culture came up. One  representative described the sharp cultural contrast he perceives between for-profit and non-profit organizations based on his daily work experience at the professional services firm vs. his prior experience serving on boards of non-profits which have developed strategic plans.

 

The conversation prompts me to muse on the culture question.  One operational definition of “culture” describes it as what employees think and do when the boss isn’t looking.  Are there cultural differences between for-profits and non-profits? Yes, but  these differences may not be as stark or consequential as might first appear.

 

The non-profits with which I work are led and managed on the basis of solid business principles.   These don’t fit the “Kumbaya” stereotype by any stretch. For instance, several clients do manufacturing and/or provide services which generate margin, i.e., revenue must exceed costs by a targeted amount which in turn is plowed back into the finance and delivery of benevolent services, rather than being distributed to shareholders and/or employees. So yes there are differences in how these earnings are applied, but not so much in how they are earned. For non-profits, generating usable income is of paramount importance today because of cut-backs in government spending, tightening of philanthropic purse strings, increased operating costs and other factors.  While it is true that “culturally,” some non-profit employees may not understand or embrace fully this unforgiving financial reality,  their leaders face it daily and make their decisions accordingly.  I concur that there is a cultural difference in for-profit vs. non-profit employee understanding but in the end, financial reality must be obliged; non-profit leaders I know work continuously to help their employees understand this reality and operate accordingly.

 

Non-profits with which I work no longer live in a “cushy” world, if they ever did.  Competition is fierce, often emanating from the for-profit sector and from other hungry non-profits.  I have worked with non-profits which are in competitive struggles which are equally intense as the struggles faced by for-profit organizations.

 

Bottom line?  To survive and thrive, an effective approach to strategic planning needs to be as thorough and competent  for today’s non-profit clients as it is for the for-profit client.

 

Personally, when I think about significant cultural differences to be factored into the strategic planning process, I reflect on cultural differences I have observed in Africa – not   only vis-à-vis US and European practices but also between East African and West African nations, between Anglophone and Francophone countries.  I think about cultural differences in Asian vs. Western approaches to negotiation and their strategic implications. I reflect on challenges experienced in optimizing collaboration among German engineers and French engineers who are employed by the same global company. 

 

In short, what one regards as a significant cultural difference is driven by the frame of reference being used. I am reminded of a valuable lesson: One person’s notion of “culture” is not necessarily the same as another person’s notion.  Maybe not even close.  So when the term “culture” is used, we all benefit from defining our terms!

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Print
  • email
  • blogmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooBuzz