CHAPTER 5: CHANGE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS IN THE
STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN
ORGANISATIONS IN RESPONSE TO GLOBALISATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS
5-211
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-212
5.2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT “CULTURE”
FROM A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE 5-216 5.2.1 Clarification of the concept “culture” 5-218 5.2.2 A typology of culture analysed within the context of globalisation
and environmental turbulence 5-222 5.2.3 Reshaping the culture of an enterprise 5-230
5.3 THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE STRATEGIC
REALIGNMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE 5-236 5.3.1 Visionary leadership 5-240 5.3.2 The role of leadership in culture formation 5-243 5.3.3 Leadership and team building 5-245 5.3.4 Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: a
strategic perspective 5-250
5.4 ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS: THE EFFECT THEREOF ON
MANAGING THE STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT OF AN ENTERPRISE 5-259
5.5 THE HUMAN DIMENSION OF ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGIC
REALIGNMENT 5-267
SYNOPSIS
CHAPTER 5: CHANGE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS IN THE STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN ORGANISATIONS IN RESPONSE TO GLOBALISATION
This chapter needs to be seen within the context of the preceding chapters with an accent on the need for managing strategic change in order to optimally position the enterprise within a highly competitiveglobal marketplace. It is argued that the strategic realignment of the enterprise entails dealing with challenges to well-entrenched value, norm, tradition, and belief systems, as to how business is conducted. By implication this implies a need to reevaluate and where deemed imperative, realign the institution’s culture to ensure it is able to meet the challenges and risks posed by technology driven business redefinition within a global marketplace. Central to such a strategic redefinition is the need for effective leadership and specific attention is therefore attributed to leadership in managing strategic change.
It is contended that the “people” or “human” dimensions of strategic change management are in all probability one of the most complex issues that will confront executives and managers in managing the strategic realignment of the enterprise. It is a reality acknowledged in figure 4-1 which serves as a frame of reference for the discussion in this chapter. The MIT90s framework presented in figure 3-1 places an emphasis on both culture and individuals in the strategic realignment of the enterprise, both issues that are dealt with quite extensively in this chapter. The framework serves to place the issues in perspective, in relation to strategy, structure, technology and management processes.
Key issues addressed from a strategic change management perspective, in this chapter, are the effect of organisational politics, emotional intelligence as an aspect of transformational leadership, team building, culture change, and visionary leadership. Collectively these issues are deemed to play a fundamental role in managing change.
CHAPTER 5: CHANGE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS IN THE STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN ORGANISATIONS IN RESPONSE TO GLOBALISATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
“Your skill as a global manager in dealing with complexity and adaptability constitutes the two keys to your organization’s ability to survive in global competition. To do this, you must know how to manage a global corporate culture that can be responsive to constant change.”
Rhinesmith 1993:87
The time between emerging events and the consequences flowing from such events is for ever decreasing and management’s ability to strategically respond to changing conditions is to a large extent determined by the human factors involved. The “people issues”, as they are termed by Morton (1991:21), are central to contemporary management practice in responding to turbulent environmental conditions. They are also multifaceted and complex in nature. The “people issues” relate to changing paradigms of management, establishing learning organisations, having to deal with organisational politics, reshaping the cultures of business institutions, reskilling of staff, knowledge management, emotional intelligence, stress management, resistance to change, self managed teams and a host of similar issues that collectively translate into unprecedented complexity in the strategic alignment of an enterprise within its turbulent environment. It is therefore not surprising to find the people/culture dimension featuring quite prominently in the MIT90s framework depicted in figure 3-1. Rhinesmith’s, (1993:87) introductory statement also attests to the importance attributed to managing strategic complexity and the need to take the culture of the institution into consideration, in that they ultimately play a determining role in ensuring the organisation’s survival in a very competitive global marketplace.
complexity, if they are unable to be implemented. As we have seen in the preceding chapters of this study, the systemic, process, structural, architectural and infrastructure considerations are highly task centred in nature. Incorporating the skills element of strategy implementation in the strategic alignment model (see figure 4-2) therefore makes a lot of sense. Seen within the context of the model, these skills pertain to both business and technology competencies. Being processes driven the emphasis is on activities and efficiencies in carrying out these activities. By implication training and development of staff, performance management, the selection and recruitment of staff with the required skills, and remuneration therefore feature quite prominently as typical human resources considerations that need to be taken into consideration in managing ICT infrastructures (Henderson & Venkatraman 1993:475). The skills element, while important, cannot be considered in isolation of the emotion, feeling, and expression elements that provide meaning to people and their work. These “being” elements stand in contrast to the “doing” elements associated with the activities undertaken by people in implementing strategy. They are also deemed to be of a critical nature in that they influence the motivation of people and consequently their productivity in carrying out these tasks.
The research into process innovation, undertaken by Davenport, is acknowledged as being of significant importance within the literature. The fact that he identifies the “softer” behavioural aspects associated with process-orientated change, as being business critical, is quite informative (Davenport, 1993:178). He identifies three leadership qualities for success, namely:
Q an ability to inspire
Q conceptual skills and
Q an impatience for results.
All of the qualities are seen as essential ingredients in managing people within a turbulent context, where speed of delivery has assumed renewed meaning. The softer human issues of management do not detract from the hard core issues associated with a business results-orientation, they complement them in reality and give meaning to what
could best be described as the “soul of the enterprise” or the passion of winning in a highly competitive global business environment. As noted by Davenport (1993:178) “changes in values, attitudes and behaviour cannot be effected by a decision taken in the boardroom or mandated in a memo”. Yet in practice it is these very behavioural issues that assume a vital role in formulating and implementing innovative strategies.
Seen within the background of a strategic and global business perspective, the human issues involved are multifaceted. They include inter alia:
Q Having to manage people through the trauma of change and deal with their fears and concerns (Farrow 1997:316; Potter 2001:56)
Q Bridging cultural gaps in bringing people from different international cultures together (Harris 2000:276; Korac-Kakabadse & Kouzmin 1999:291)
Q Creating a winning corporate culture (Elashmawi 2000:148)
Q Dealing with organisational politics (Butcher & Clarke 1999:9)
Q Facilitating teamwork (Alpander & Lee 1995:4)
Q Building relationships (McLagan & Nel 1995:48)
Q Integrating technical and management skills (Weeks & Weeks 2000:19)
Q Managing organisational learning (Lee et al. 2000:549; Smith et al. 1996:41). The human implications in strategically realigning organisations within turbulent and competitive global markets are quite extensive and more often than not it entails a change in management paradigms, which in turn gives rise to culture shock (Harris 2000:274,277). The movement towards free market economies and democratic value-based business dispensations, aggravate the cultural trauma experienced by managers, who have grown accustom to totalitarian bureaucratic dispensations (Harris 2000:277).
Intellectual capital is deemed to be the life blood of many business institutions operating in global markets. Client centred service rendering, service excellence, ingenuity, innovation, and rapid response times, are further typical characteristics associated with operating in global markets. Empowerment of staff to be able to respond to the different
and changing needs of clients, presupposes a culture of empowerment. It is a culture where the primary task of supervision is “to help people trust their own instincts and take responsibility for the success of the business” (Block 1987:24). People empowerment requires management to move from hierarchal structures to more participative forms of management, with a sharing of authority and responsibility for service delivery to clients (Harris 2000:277). Entrenched within traditional management mindsets is a far more patriarchal form of management that emphasises submission to authority and a denial of self-expression, engendering a sense of dependency (Block 1987:25), which stands in contrast to more democratic forms of management required within a turbulent client centred global business environment.
The future strategic challenge, in what Brown & Eisenhardt (1998:7) describe as
“managing on the edge”, implies a need for establishing a culture of “change”. The
underlying rationale being one of strategic thinking and an ability to rapidly respond to changing environmental events that radically transform the business environment. It in all probability, in cultural terms, implies an equivalent of a “genetic reengineering” of the organisation (McLagan & Nel, 1995:44) or a fundamental change in the way executives, at a cognitive level, formulate and implement strategy. It also embodies an adoption of people centred values that direct management practice, as opposed to purely task based cultural determinants. Changing executive mental models, as to the management of South African business institutions within the 21st century, may not be easy, yet if these institutions are to capitalise on the opportunities presented by globalisation and deal with the inherent threats embodied therein, such changes will need to assume a far greater sense of urgency.
In the ensuing sections of this chapter the change management and “people” related implications associated with globalisation will be explored in greater detail, using the model presented in figure 4.1 and the MIT90s (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) framework, depicted in figure 3-1, as a source of reference.
5.2 AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT “CULTURE” FROM A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
“We have chosen to divide organizational life into three levels of activity: strategy/structure, corporate culture, and people ... An integrated approach to managing global organizations addresses all three levels. The problem facing executives, managers, and employees of globalizing corporations is that few people within an organization comprehend all three areas.”
Rhinesmith 1993:11
The buzzwords of management have not gone unnoticed by senior executives and managers of South African organisations, yet the rhetoric is not often reflected in practice. The more people centred management approaches are advocated, as being essential for gaining a competitive advantage in global markets, the more lip service is paid to the establishment of such cultures, yet in reality the true picture is often quite different from that advocated by the people concerned. Breaking with well-entrenched beliefs, values, norms and assumptions that have become ingrained in management thinking over a number of years takes both courage of conviction and a sense of daring, that can only emanate from feelings of security and a real understanding of the strategic issues at stake. Buch & Werzel (2001:40) go so far as to claim that “almost everyone has been in an organisation that says one thing but does another”.
The difficulty executives experience in breaking with traditional cultures is attested to by Cartwrite (1999:30), who alleges that culture change does not come naturally to those who have become accustomed to traditional cultural value systems. In fact quite often the opposite is true it engenders a sense of anxiety and stress that is certainly not conducive to a change in values and beliefs (Cartwrite 1999:30). The answer to this dichotomy of
preaching one set of values and living out another is vested in the fact that many executives do not really understand the concept “culture”, its impact on the organisation and the means used to nurture a desired culture. The apparent lack of understanding that exists in relation to the concept is briefly referred to in the introductory quotation. A further complicating factor is the fact that culture change is not achieved overnight (Cartwrite 1991:30; Line 1999:73), it constitutes a reasonably long term commitment that takes both determination and a keen sense of knowing what is strategically important for the organisation.
The most difficult people to enlist in organisational transformation efforts are frequently middle management, in that they have been conditioned to manifest behaviour patterns that can best be described as “playing safe” (Weeks & Lessing 1993:110). Once entrenched in cultural comfort zones of bureaucracy all they need to do is play by the rules that have been established by senior executive structures. A rules-based culture will tend to lack the flexibility and staff empowerment elements required for dealing with contextual instability.
Recognising the need for culture change is the start of a rather long journey directed at changing well-entrenched values, norms and beliefs. It is a journey that requires the support of all levels of management if the desired end state is to be reached. Soliciting this support will entail an understanding of the concept, how it is formed, what its impact is on the organisation and how it can be reshaped. Research conducted by Vielba (1995:9) confirms that managers experience significant difficulty in understanding and applying formal culture models within the workplace. In more explicit terms, Brown (1998:xi) clearly states that “culture is still a relatively new, controversial and little understood management concept”.
The importance of the concept “culture” stems from the fact that it serves as a perceptual and a behavioural determinant (Berrell et al. 1999:578; Line 1999:73; Weeks 1993:51). It therefore has the inherent ability to influence both the formulation and implementation of
strategy (Weeks & Lessing 1993:109). Within the context of this study the concept therefore assumes specific relevance as a strategic determinant. In its very nature the culture of the organisation is rooted in the past, while strategy is future oriented. With this in mind it is important to note that Alpander & Lee (1995:10) claim that dysfunctional cultures are observed in organisations where staff manifest behaviour patterns that are more appropriate for a passing era and are clearly inappropriate for dealing with a turbulent business environment.
It is argued by Rhinesmith (1993:16) that without a fundamental change in executives, managers and employee mindsets “the best vision or global strategy will never get off the ground”. Developing a so called “global corporate culture” is deemed by the researcher to be imperative for effectively dealing with globalisation at a strategic level, it apparently entails “integrating values mechanisms, and processes that allow a company to successfully manage constant change in a competitive marketplace” (Rhinesmith 1993:16,88-89).
As South African business institutions increasingly venture into global markets, historical behaviour patterns developed in an era of relative isolation may hardly be appropriate for competing head on with international organisations that have adapted their cultures to be able to respond to changing conditions with a degree of flexibility and innovation not reflected by local business institutions. The importance of Vielba’s (1995:4) statement that “managers need to have a grasp of cultural concepts in order to perform their role satisfactory”, needs to be seen within this context.
In view of the importance attributed to the concept “culture” as a dimension of management and the apparent lack of understanding that exists in regard to the concept, an attempt is made in the following section to define and gain a practical understanding of the concept from a strategic management perspective.
People are social beings and are instinctively drawn into groups to satisfy a multitude of needs, many of which find expression in Maslow’s hierarchy of motivational needs for survival, security, belonging, self-esteem and self-actualisation (Cartwrite 1999:4). Organisations in themselves are webs of social interaction and therefore play a role in the degree to which people are able to realise these diverse needs. In anthropology where the concept “culture” is most fully developed, culture concerns all aspects of a group’s social behaviour. Schein (1992:12) defines the culture of a group as:
“A shared pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems.”
Inherent to this definition is the notion of a process of socialisation that takes place within the group context and which gives rise to a set of shared basic assumptions that act as a perceptual determinant. The important aspect to note in this definition is its reference to culture being a group phenomenon. In other words it is not based on individual, but shared cultural attributes that are manifest in group behaviour patterns. The shared assumptions, values and beliefs define the character of the group and it is this that provides it with a unique sense of identity, which distinguishes it from other groups (Deal & Kennedy 1982:23).
DeLisi (1990:84-85) is a researcher who has used Schein’s previously cited definition to develop a culture-based organisational model using the MIT90s Framework (see figure 3-1) as a basis. He accords culture a more important role, arguing that it in effect needs to be placed at the centre of the model thereby replacing the “management processes” component. The latter is then combined with the structural component in the model. DeLisi (1990:84) motivates this change on the basis that the “pattern of basic
assumptions” held by a group affects strategy, structure, information technologies and the individual more fundamentally than they affect culture.
The importance attributed to Schein’s (1992:12) definition within the literature may be ascertained from the fact that it has been extensively quoted and used by various researchers, within varying contexts, to clarify what is meant by the concept (Brown 1988:8; Buch & Wetzel 2001:40; Cartwright 1999:10; Lakomski 2001:70). Having defined the concept Schein distinguishes between three different but interrelated levels of culture, namely artifacts, organisational values and the basic assumptions on which organisational values are based (Weeks 1988:50).
The artifacts are visible products or manifestations of the culture value systems. They are
as a rule easy to observe, yet difficult to interpret. They may well include symbolic representations embodied in myths, stories, celebrations, legends and rituals. Notably, Deal & Kennedy (1982:63) maintain that without such expressive events the culture will eventually fade and die. They are in effect dramatisations of shared values and beliefs that have come into being and are shared by members of the institution concerned. Brooks (1997:117) concludes that such events express in symbolic terms what is important in an organisation and in the processes play a fundamental role in the shaping of the culture.
The subsequent level is that of values. Values are termed by Deal & Kennedy (1982:21) to be the bedrock of any corporate culture, in that they provide a sense of common direction for all employees and guidelines for their behaviour. In a very similar sense, Cartwrite (1999:16) asserts that values underpin all attitudes and behaviour. The stronger the sense of values, the more profound their impact is on group or organisational behaviour and the converse is also deemed to be true. The value systems that are articulated in value, ethics or mission statements, can only be considered to be valid if they are “lived out” in the day-to-day behaviour patterns of the staff concerned. If not, they are merely statements of intent with little substance. The values that underpin behaviour
in an organisation may not even be incorporated within written documents of intent (Deal & Kennedy 1982:21), yet their influence is no less tangible in shaping the behaviour patterns of people.
The underlying values and assumptions define the most fundamental level of an organisation’s culture, they are generally taken for granted and are instinctively shaping the way people behave in a particular situation (Buch & Wetzel 2001:40; Zwell 2000:9). The fact that it is situational dependent implies that different values or assumptions are associated with different situations.
At the lowest level of culture are the underlying assumptions, which Schein (1992:12) refers to in his definition of the concept. This level is extremely difficult to analyse and interpret, consequently few practitioners delve into culture at this level, due to the difficulties experienced in determining the assumptions in the first instance. Once they have been taken for granted they drop from conscious awareness and become difficult to uncover (Weeks 1982:52). From a more practical perspective, the first two levels therefore assume greater relevance.
Corporate culture is described by Tunstall (1983:15) as:
“a general constellation of beliefs, mores, customs, value systems, behaviour norms, and ways of doing business that are unique to each corporation, that set a pattern for corporate activities and actions, and that describe the implicit and emerging patterns of behaviour and emotions characterising life in the organisation.”
In this definition the cultural elements that are shared by the group concerned are far more extensive in extent, than that attributed to the concept by Schein (1992:12). In so doing Tunstall appears to be in good company, for in analysing definitions attributed to the concept by various researchers, Weeks (1988:56) found that a pattern of shared beliefs,
values, norms, basic assumptions and behaviour emerged as being central to the content of these definitions. The definitions essentially tended to differ in terms of the cultural elements that were either included or omitted (Weeks 1988:56). For all practical purposes the elements concerned are very similar in nature and the important issue is not which elements are included, but that they collectively act as a behavioural determinant. They essentially serve as a frame of reference for interpreting and reacting to environmental events or situations. They in effect thus act as cues for correct or acceptable behaviour within a particular context (Weeks 1993:53).
5.2.2 A typology of culture analysed within the context of globalisation and environmental turbulence
It is not uncommon to find within the literature that culture and the underlying values on which it is based are characterised in business related terms. So for instance McLagan & Nel (1995:61-66) distinguish between authoritarian and participative value systems. The latter is related to a customer focus, power sharing, rights and responsibilities, diversity and similar desired cultural attributes, which are associated with institutional success (McLagan & Nel 1995:61,66). The notion of national cultures is introduced by Corbett & Rastrick (2000:15) and Rhinesmith (1993:113) in referring to the concept from a global business perspective. Lakomski (2001:70) in researching culture from a change management perspective identifies the need for a learning culture. Zwell (2000:5), in attempting to identify organisational success factors, focuses on what he terms to be a culture of competence. Each of these conceptualisations of culture has as a basis a particular paradigm of values that give rise to desired behaviour patterns, which are associated with success, efficiency, and similar desirable traits.
The researcher has on a number of occasions been involved in facilitating strategic workshops, during which an attempt was made by the delegates to identify the cultural elements that would be best suited for implementing the strategy formulated for the organisation. Clearly implied was a process of associating desired behaviour with the values that would give rise to such behaviour. Typical lists generated included values and
related cultural elements such as: trust, honesty, customer focussed, teamwork, professionalism, integrity, loyalty, mutual respect, pride, participation, transparency, caring for people, value for money, excellence, self-motivated, service driven, innovation, commitment, environmentally friendly, and accountability. While not constituting an exhaustive list, it serves to indicate a desired value system that would tend to engender behaviour that is directed at service excellence and a sense of caring for the employees of the organisation. The latter being based on the axiom “that people are our most important asset”. It is a typical cultural dispensation that one would require within a highly turbulent and competitive business environment. In relating these cultural values to the actual prevailing culture of the organisation, it was often found that the existing culture was in many respects the opposite to that required for implementing a customer focussed strategy. In many instances the prevailing culture reflected a value system based on bureaucracy and power systems.
Handy (1976:179) described the bureaucratic or role culture, referred to above, in terms of rules, procedures and status symbols within the organisation. He contended that it was a risk averse culture and one that certainly did not encourage innovation and creativity in serving the customer. According to Weeks & Lessing (1993:123), role cultures are conservative, traditional, bureaucratically controlled, with centralised decision making. People follow the rules and are expected to conform to well-established practices and procedures. There is a direct correlation between a role and the process culture defined by Deal & Kennedy (1982:108). The accent in the case of the latter is on the “how” and not on the “results or outcomes” associated with the processes. Organisations with predominantly role cultures are generally found within the public sector and they are hardly effective in dealing with a highly competitive global marketplace.
The power culture referred to above is described as one where people are rewarded for
outperforming one another and the focus is on establishing a power base within the organisation (Weeks & Lessing 1993:123). Power cultures are generally associated with organisational politics.
As may be determined from the description attributed to a role and power culture, they will hardly support a strategy that is customer service directed and based on innovative and creative service rendering. They will certainly tend to discourage any form of risk taking in venturing into international markets and will not be able to support the degree of flexibility required to rapidly respond to changing business conditions or customer requirements. Of particular pertinence, however, is the fact that role and power cultures are not conducive to the tapping of the “intellectual capital” that resides within the organisation and as a consequence a major opportunity for gaining a competitive advantage in the global marketplace may be lost.
A person culture, as the term suggests, while focussing on the needs, expectations and
aspirations of the employees of the organisation, is also directed at teamwork and collaboration on the basis of mutual respect (Weeks & Lessing 1993:123-124).
The term “task culture” was used by Handy (1976:181) to refer to organisational settings where the accent was on getting the job done in the most appropriate way. It nurtures a sense of innovation and creativity by rewarding success and a high value is placed on self-actualisation. It is a fun culture and employees are encouraged and motivated to set challenging, but realistic goals for themselves. Calculated risks are taken and management plays a key role in supporting employees in achieving the challenging goals that have been established. It is without doubt a team culture where employees work together to achieve shared objectives they have been instrumental in establishing. People aspire to greater accomplishment and excel in their endeavours, not because they are coerced, but because they find a personal sense of inner satisfaction and pride in their accomplishments (Weeks & Lessing 1993:124). This in effect constitutes the rationale or underlying logic of nurturing a person / task culture within business institutions that are client service driven.
Implied in the preceding discussion is the notion that role or bureaucratic cultural determinants are hardly desirable in a world where change and transformation have
become key words in managing modern day business institutions. The fact that they are still so prevalent in so many instances, means that in practice some form of bureaucracy may still be required. Harris (2001) confirms that business institutions still need a certain degree of order and process in conducting business transactions. There is therefore a form of “good” and “bad” bureaucracy and one needs to draw a distinction between the two. The so called “bad” bureaucracy is one where employees are inhibited from being able to make an innovative and creative contribution in realising the strategic objectives that have been established for the organisation. The rules and processes that have been established need to within reason accommodate employee participation in decision making processes. They are essentially directed at ensuring a uniform means or process of doing business and in particular of ensuring that no unethical transactions are conducted. Within this context processes are seen as providing a common understanding, as to how things are done, while still enabling people to make an innovative and valuable contribution in service rendering (Coetzee 2000; Harris 2001).
There appears to be a move from bureaucratic processes to collaborative governance in certain enterprises. Respondent A (2001) indicated that a central underlying facet of corporate governance was the generic rules that give meaning to how things are done within the organisation. There is a common shared understanding within the organisation, in terms of the need for these rules (Respondent A 2001) and they in effect form an inherent part of the governance culture within the enterprise. An important aspect of the governance infrastructure is the role played by ICT therein. It is referred to by Respondent A (2001) as the “electronic workplace”, a concept that assumes meaning within the cultural domain of the enterprise itself. Document management and workflow constitute an inherent element of the corporate governance infrastructure. The electronic governance infrastructure necessitated a redesign of the business processes, which in turn had a ripple effect on the way “we do things around here”. In this regard it is important to note that culture has frequently been defined as “the way things are done around here” (Weeks & Lessing 1993:119). Organisational reality and the way things are done within the organisation are constituted in terms of shared mental understandings
that endow corporate governance with meaning. It is an understanding based on the need for an orderly way of conducting business transactions across the enterprise.
Harris (2001) acknowledges that with the advent of e-business many traditional models of how business is done needs to be changed. Such new models still need to maintain a balance between management and process controls and the need for change. The changes that take place are not haphazard in nature, they are strategically directed and informed, with sound business plans forming the foundation for process controls (Harris 2001). Implied therefore is the need for values and related cultural determinants that ensure a sense of order in managing change. This according to Harris (2001) necessitates a balance between existing business related values and beliefs that remain valid and new values that are far more in alignment with evolving business conditions. In establishing a typology of culture it needs to be recognised that in practice the above role, task, people and power clarification merely serves as a basis for gaining an understanding of the generic characteristics associated with the concept “culture”. The four cultural groupings or combinations of them may not be characteristic of the cultures that exist in all enterprises. They do, however, provide a framework within which organisational culture may be analysed.
Within the context of strategic management it may be questioned as to what the ideal cultural characteristics are for managing an enterprise within the 21st century, where instability, intense competition, and globalisation are becoming the norm rather than the exception to the rule. Zwell (2000:11) contends that the demands of today’s global marketplace mandate cultural changes that are directed at achieving resource efficiencies, while enhancing client satisfaction. Zwell (2000:12-13) identified several specific characteristics of what he terms to be a “successful culture”, these are:
Q A successful culture fosters employee development and encourages employees to become actively engaged in the activities of the organisation. The underlying rationale appears to be that an enterprise’s response in serving its clients and achieving cost efficiencies can be no greater than the collective efforts of its
employees and by implication employee development and motivation assumes relevance from a cultural perspective. Innovation, creativity and teamwork are as a consequence cultural aspects that require attention
Q The culture provides an avenue for highly competent employees to exercise their talents and make a difference in the organisation. A facet in this regard will be the degree of employee empowerment that takes place. A further consideration being the intellectual capital available within the enterprise
Q The culture creates a work environment in which employees are engaged, challenged, and motivated. This in essence could be correlated to the previously referenced people culture
Q The culture’s systems of compensation and recognition rewards employees for their performance and their contribution to the success of the enterprise.
The above cultural characteristics are very much in line with a person/task culture, as previously described. They tend to stand in contrast to the role/power cultures, which constrain employee empowerment and the effective utilisation of the inherent intellectual capital that resides within the enterprise. The pervasive impact of the Internet and the associated collaborative technologies is symptomatic of the business process changes taking place, which ultimately engenders a redefinition of the way business is done within the enterprise. Collectively the business and ICT changes give rise to a new learning experience that undermines established cultural beliefs, values, norms and traditions, as to the way business is conducted. At the core of the culture transformation is the concept of organisational learning which has as its basis a culture based on transcending human values of caring, humility and compassion (Senge 1995:40). In learning organisations cultural norms defy business tradition (Senge 1995:40).
In a sense a new typology of culture is in the processes of coming into being. It is a culture that facilitates the establishment of a “business community” within an enterprise, one with values, norms and beliefs that are more in line with the needs of contemporary business practice. Coetzee (2000) and Respondent A (2001) observed that the cultural
changes evolve from a new set of social dynamics that comes into being with changing management processes, technology and management paradigms that form the core of new business practice within the 21st century. The management challenge, according to Clippinger (1995:3), relates to creating conditions and contexts and by implication a culture that enables employees to function in a changing world of global business practice. It is a world where employees or the so called business community within the enterprise need to rapidly respond to the unenvisaged consequences of global events and trends.
The core constituent elements of this evolving 21st century typology of culture are characterised as follows:
Q Commitment. Commitment emerges when people work together to engender value in service provision (Brown & Isaacs 1995:73). Common language, symbols and metaphors are instrumental in discovering shared meaning, which provides the foundation for committed action (Brown & Isaacs 1995:73). Service excellence originates from an inner commitment and not from client directed values incorporated within strategic value statements of intent
Q Innovation. It is the element that underpins much of what constitutes competitive advantage within the global marketplace (Zwell 2000:31). As seen in chapter four of this study, innovation plays a business critical role in process design and frequent cultural attributes associated with innovation are: risk tolerance, strategic thinking, a sense of exploration, a search of new meaning in a world of discontinuities, and the freedom to imagine the impossible. Innovation is the value system through which employees generate new ideas and business solutions for dealing with the complex issues confronting the enterprise. It embodies a sense of tolerance and allows employees to make errors, provided they learn from such errors
Q Ubuntu. Central to the African context of community is the notion of “ubuntu”, it upholds values such as respect, being treated with dignity and empathy (Lessem 1996:17). It is based on the belief that “I am because you are” (Lessem, 1996:187). The concept reflects group cohesion, a common sense of purpose and a collective
team spirit that fosters accomplishment. Team building is an inherent facet associated with the concept. The accent is not on individual accomplishment, it is the team effort that assumes overriding importance. These are all deemed to be desirable cultural attributes within the modern day enterprise. Collaboration is an important characteristic of the ubuntu culture
Q Flexibility. Organisations that are able to rapidly respond to changing circumstances are open and responsive to new ideas, employee involvement, and participation, which are key elements in engendering flexibility within the enterprise. Sun Tzu a Chinese warrior-philosopher compiled a manuscript detailing the art of war more than two thousand years ago (Cleary 1998:viii). He advocated the principle of flexibility in conducing a campaign in order to cope with changing conditions (Wee 1994:191). Sun Tzu drew a metaphorical correlation between flexibility and water flowing over uneven ground, it constantly realigns itself to adapt to changing conditions, it has no constant shape and consequently there can be no fixed prescriptive conditions. (Wee 1994:191). This flexibility in particular extends to meeting changing client needs and expectations in a competitive context. A key facet of a flexible culture is one of being prepared to reformulate well-entrenched perceptions, norms and beliefs, so as to metaphorically flow with the stream. Kotter (1997:167) maintains that in an adaptive/flexible culture management “deeply, honestly, sincerely values, the various players in the corporate drama” and “initiative and leadership are truly valued and encouraged at every level in the organization”
Q Customer focussed. Today, in the global marketplace, customers have come to expect that business institutions do things their way (Hammer 1997:96) and the need for a client oriented culture could never have been greater. It is proclaimed by Snyder
et al. (1994:163) that success comes from valuing the voice of the customer. The
researchers identified three core values that are deemed essential in valuing the voice of the customer, namely: service, humility, and integrity (Snyder et al. 1994:167-168). A central tenet that underpins any strategic response to increased competitive forces within the global marketplace is that of providing customers with service excellence. Building sound relationships with clients encompasses values such as respect, caring,
a concern for quality, professionalism, teamwork, trust, consistency, and integrity (Cartwright 1999:150). It is contended by Block (1991:119) that employees will tend to treat customers in the same way that they are treated, if there is a lack of respect, understanding, and caring for employees, this will be reflected in customer relations
Q Empowerment. It relates to more participative cultural value systems and beliefs directed at a sharing of authority with employees (Harris 2000:277). Empowerment thrives in a culture of openness, collaboration, learning, mutual respect and teamwork (Block 1991:124-125; Harris 2000:278). It implies a sharing of information, decision making and a strengthening of relationships at all levels within the enterprise, based on trust and mutual respect
Q Globalisation. Going global has significant cultural implications for business institutions. They may need to form alliances with business institutions that differ culturally and operate within totally different national cultural backgrounds. An awareness of differing cultural perspectives, traditions and business practices is therefore deemed essential. This translates into a culture of tolerance based on respect for the values and beliefs of others. It has been referred to in terms of celebrating diversity. Within a global context, Parker (1998:194-195) notes that values in relation to dress, time, music language, symbolism, and use of space may vary from place to place. Operating within diverse cultural domains implies a need for cultural sensitivity.
The above list is no way exhaustive, it merely serves as a frame of reference for thinking through the changing nature of a modern day typology of culture, that is more in line with contemporary business realities. A strong interrelationship exists between the above cultural characteristics and they need to be viewed, not in isolation of each other, but as an entity shaping behaviour patterns within contemporary business institutions.
Change and the management thereof are key themes within the management literature (Alpander & Lee 1995:4; Farrow, 1997:317; Ragsdell 2000:104; Weeks 1990:viii) and in view of the fact that there are probably a number of business institutions that need to
realign their cultures to be more responsive to changing strategic business imperatives, the reshaping of organisational culture will be briefly explored in the following section.
5.2.3 Reshaping the culture of an enterprise
“As organizations become more boundaryless, distributed and networked with other companies, cultures will not happen quite as quickly and easily as they have in the past.”
Kotter 1997:176
Whether culture could ever have been quickly and easily shaped, as suggested by Kotter (1997:176), is certainly a debatable point. There are quite a few researchers who would not agree that this was ever the case (Buch & Wetzel 2001:43; Uttal 1983:69,72). It needs to be clearly stated up front that culture change is no easy task and certainly not one that takes place overnight without significant ramifications in terms of the culture shock experienced by staff (Cartwright 1999:30). The impact of technology in tearing down dividing walls between departments, enterprises and even national institutions has further complicated the issue, as may be ascertained from the above statement by Kotter (1997:176). A well-established culture seems to have an inbuilt resilience that attempts to maintain the status quo. Cultural values, norms and beliefs provide employees with a sense of stability and security in a world of turbulence and strategically directed organisational change (Cartwright 1999:28). It relates to one of the very basic needs identified in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, namely the need for stability, safety and security.
Pettigrew (Peters & Waterman 1982:104) believes that the process of shaping the culture of an enterprise remains a prime management responsibility and the point of departure, according to Kotter (1997:177), is a realistic assessment of the prevailing culture of the institution concerned. It needs to be determined whether the existing culture will enable the organisation to deal with the strategic and operational issues that emerge as a result of
would be the desired behavioural aspects associated with managing a modern day business institution. As stated by Kotter (1997:177), the question is whether the institution’s culture is going to be an asset or an anchor in having to deal with turbulent environmental conditions. Only then can one determine which current cultural attributes would need to be reshaped in order for the organisation to function more effectively in the digital global marketplace.
Extensive technological, political, socio-cultural, economic, ecological, and business related changes have increasingly necessitated a change in traditional management paradigms. It is suggested by Lakomski (2001:68) that resistance to the required change in management thinking, largely stems from cultural factors inherent within the enterprise. Pettigrew (Peters & Waterman 1982:104), argues that the cultural transformation process is primarily driven by the leaders or executive management team within the institution. In the ensuing section of this chapter leadership will be dealt with in greater detail. For the purposes of this section it needs to be noted that executives and managers serve as role models and through their behaviour employees come to realise what behaviour is considered to be appropriate in particular situations. It is a contention supported by Deal & Kennedy (1982:141) in asserting that in institutions with strong cultures managers play a leading role in supporting and shaping the culture. These so called symbolic managers are extremely sensitive to the culture of their institutions and the culture required for successfully functioning in the prevailing marketplace (Deal & Kennedy 1982:141). The term “symbolic managers” originates from their role as scriptwriters, and directors in the daily drama of events within the enterprise, that are instrumental in shaping its culture (Deal & Kennedy 1982:141).
An important facet of culture transformation is the notion of organisational learning. This is clearly evident in the definition attributed to the concept by Schein (1992:12). A major activity that new members entering a group or an organisation engage in, is deemed to be the deciphering of the cultural phenomena that give meaning to what is acceptable behaviour in different situations (Schein 1992:13). Culture transformation as a
consequence would imply a change in either the interpretation of these phenomena or a total change in the phenomena itself.
In introducing learning as a means for culture transformation and taking cognisance of the fact that teamwork and participation are considered to be desirable cultural attributes of contemporary business institutions, it needs to be questioned what role team members play in the transformation processes. The implication is that it is no longer only the formal leaders, but also the informal leaders in teams that act as cultural change agents. The social interaction that takes place within a group or an organisation is frequently one of searching for answers to complex problems on a trial and error basis, which gives rise to experiential group learning experiences that are instrumental in establishing new values, beliefs and norms. Snyder et al. (1994:106) remark that the ability to learn is considered to be essential in the implementation of quality improvement efforts. The leadership role is one of nurturing organisations where people are able to expand their capabilities to shape their future (Snyder et al. 1994:107). Implied is a proactive rather than a reactive process of culture formation.
An important observation made by Snyder et al. (1994:106) is that management need to encourage staff to take calculated risks. Innovative behaviour is hardly possible in a culture of risk aversion. Associated with the taking of calculated risks, on an informed basis, are the opportunities that emanate from the implementation of innovative technology or business systems in gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace. You cannot have innovative-based strategies without accepting the degree of risk that is attached to the implementation of the strategies concerned. The extent that innovative behaviour will surface within an organisation, can as a consequence be directly related to the culture that prevails within the organisation in terms of risk acceptance. This brings into question the nature of the behaviour that is rewarded and the behaviour that is censured within the organisation. Management needs to have a clear understanding of the desired behaviour and how their response and actions may either nurture or totally eradicate behaviour patterns that are manifest. People act in self interest and they are hardly likely to venture in
implementing innovative, but risk loaded solutions, if management censures any form of failure.
Culture transformation may be conceptualised as an incremental process of successive learning opportunities for acquiring new beliefs and values. A more radical change may emanate from culture shock experienced, as a result of dramatic events that have a severe impact on an institution, its management and staff. Brown (1998:116) refers to the former
as first order and the latter as second order change. First order change is seen as being
restricted in content and process, in contrast to second order change which is multidimensional, extensive in scope and results in fundamentally new paradigms of management (Weeks 1990:160). South African business institutions subjected to the sudden realities of globalisation may for instance experience a rude awakening that is more in line with second order culture transformation. It may take the form of an adapt or die scenario. Time frames for culture change may be severely impacted on by the nature of the transformation process. The shorter the time frame to adapt to changing values and beliefs, the greater is the culture shock experienced. Various models have been developed to reflect both first and second order culture change processes. Brown (1998:118) makes reference to five such models, namely:
Q Lundberg’s model: which is based on learning cycles. It is suggested that in order for
culture change to occur, requisite external and internal conditions need to exist. Lundberg, however, is notably vague as to the specifics of managing culture change (Brown 1998:120). The assumption is made that some dramatic event precipitates the change process
Q Dryer’s model: posits the perception of a crises in conjunction with a leadership
change that is required, in order for culture change to occur. A key consideration is the change in executive management, with a consequential change in value systems
Q Schein’s model: is based on a simple life-cycle framework that corelates with different
stages in an organisation’s development. It is argued that the enterprise passes through distinct phases of development, each associated with a different culture
can be sustainable. It is based on visionary driven change. The model rests on the assumption that values have a strong emotional component and that it is the emotional element that complicates the transformation process. Symbols and myths are also used as a means to change existing value systems. A key element in managing change is the role of leaders in generating and living out the new values
Q A composite model: provides a more micro and hence detailed view of what may be
taking place within the organisation during culture change. A key facet of the transformation process is the assumption of an unfreezing, experimentation and refreezing phase that takes place sequentially.
A detailed analysis of all five these models is not within the scope of this study. Of pertinence, however, is the fact that various researchers hold different perceptions, as to how culture change may be managed. These perceptions tend to embody either a radical second or incremental first order transformation approach. In chapter 4, business process design also assumed either a radical or incremental adaptive approach and there appears to be a correlation between the culture transformation and business process design perspectives. The radical nature of process re-engineering would seem to suggest a significant culture shock, in terms of the way things are done, and this is in line with the second order culture change perspectives incorporated within some of the above models. Each of the models either explicitly or implicitly make reference to the notion of a crisis, emphasise the importance of leadership, comment on the role of perceived success and present change as a form of organisational learning (Brown 1998:145). It is quite significant that Brown (1998:145) concludes that none of the models are sufficiently complex to embrace the intricacies of various culture change processes, that is to say a holistic integrated model of culture change that is representative of varying conditions that give rise to the change process.
It is suggested by Brown (1998:189) that the normative systems model, developed by Stan Silverzweig and Robert Allen, provides an effective summary of current thinking in regard to culture change. The model consists of four steps (Brown 1998:192):
Q The first step constitutes an analysis of the existing culture and the formulation of objectives for measuring success in achieving the desired culture
Q The second step of experiencing the desired culture takes place in work teams through experiencing workshops
Q The third step begins to focus on the culture influences identified in step one. There are three principle issues in step three, namely the training of all managers and supervisors that enact the desired leadership behaviours, participants in workshops are organised into action study teams involving all employees who are briefed to identify and recommend solutions with respect to each of the critical culture influence areas, and all work teams meet regularly to modify their culture by discussing critical issues and problems
Q The fourth and last step entails sustaining the desired emerging culture. The desired culture is in effect brought into being through continual critical self-analysis. It should, however, be noted that the model is not without its critics, as to its practical value.
The central tenet that emerges in terms of culture transformation is that leadership plays a fundamental role in the change process. There also is clearly a learning component associated with the transformation and the more inclusive and participative the change process is deemed to be, the greater appears to be the degree of success attained. It appears that the need for culture change in many instances emanates from some form of crises or recognition that the organisation’s culture is dysfunctional and impacting on the realisation of strategy at an operational level.
Clearly, the more systemic dimensions of business process and technology change are far more unpretentious to deal with in comparison to culture change. It is the human dimension that complicates the strategic realignment of business institutions within a turbulent environment. The organisation’s culture encapsulates the values and beliefs that direct behaviour in adapting to global business realities. The organisations that have been able to successfully maintain a competitive position in the global marketplace, according to Alpander & Lee (1995:4), are the enterprises that have learnt to view strategic realignment
not as an event, but as an ongoing process, to remain at the cutting edge in meeting customer needs. They have a clear understanding of the strategic issues and have fostered a culture where teamwork, speed, agility, strategic thinking and continuous improvement have become a way of life (Alpander & Lee 1995:4).
There is no quick fix solution for transforming the organisation into a 21st century global player, management need to gain an awareness of the human resources issues, in relation to the business and technology domains of management, and actively endeavour to reshape the organisation’s culture to ensure that it is able to effectively compete in global and national markets on a strategic basis. The process of culture realignment requires effective leadership and as noted by Brown (1998:176), research studies have repeatedly demonstrated that without executive commitment and active participation culture change will be but another endeavour with little substance.
5.3 THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE STRATEGIC REALIGNMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE
“Against a backdrop of increasing globalisation, deregulation, the rapid pace of technological innovation, a growing knowledge workforce, and shifting social and demographic trends, few would dispute that the primary task of management today is the leadership of organisational change.”
Graetz 2000:550
The strategic and operational challenges facing the executives, managers and staff of South African business institutions are increasing in scope, intensity, and complexity. The nature of these challenges and management’s response has in a sense changed the traditional management paradigm of command and control to incorporate a more participative and democratic style of thinking that is more in line with the contextual realities reflected in the introductory statement by Graetz (2000:550). By making use of case studies and surveys, Kouzes & Posner (1995:9) uncovered five practices that enable
leaders to function more effectively, namely: challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart. There are a number of similarities between the practices identified and the management imperatives encapsulated within culture transformation theory. Of equal pertinence is the empowerment related practices that are directed at enabling staff to make a difference in meeting the challenges of a turbulent business environment. Leadership within this sense is a team effort, directed at realising the strategic objectives that have been formulated for the enterprise (Potter 2001:55).
Change and the associated stress it generates in management and staff, brings the emotive component of leadership into focus. Leadership is about establishing relationships with team members and supporting them through change. Technological and process changes are instrumental in upsetting peoples well-established comfort zones and people tend, as a result, to experience emotional stress (Porter 2001:55). Business limiting behaviours are influenced by powerful negative emotions that emanate from stress related conditions and stress has therefore become a workplace issue that needs to be addressed by leaders in managing people through change (Rees & Redfern 2000:120). Six fundamental leadership competencies are identified by Porter (2001:56):
Q The first relates to creating an emotional alignment
Q The second focuses on setting a clear direction
Q The third accentuates leading by example
Q The fourth is directed at establishing effective communications
Q The fifth focuses on bringing the best out of people
Q The sixth relates to dealing with decisions in times of crisis or uncertainty.
The number of similarities that exist between these competencies and the practices identified by Kouzes & Posner (1995:9) are quite revealing, particular in relation to the vision/direction and support related dimensions concerned.
controls, and rather focus their efforts on five important emerging priorities:
Q Using vision to motivate and inspire
Q Empowering employees at all levels
Q Accumulating and sharing internal knowledge
Q Gathering and integrating external information
Q Challenging the status quo and enabling creativity.
There are again a number of similarities between these leadership elements and those previously identified above. The strategic components are also quite evident in these elements, ranging from vision formulation to contextual analysis and the need to challenge the status quo. Both Coetzee (2000) and Rogers (2001), from a practical perspective, accentuate the need for leaders to have a strategic understanding of the potential of ICT to reshape business priorities. Adams (2001) underscores this point by relating ICT, as a critical element in the establishment of a new strategic business model, to the vision that will drive the enterprise’s future direction.
Teamwork has become a recurring theme encountered within the literature, from a strategic management perspective. Within a global setting staff from varying cultural settings, with different backgrounds, vested interests, values, beliefs, fears and concerns need to be able to interact in virtual teams within the electronic workplace. Leadership is certainly put to the test in conditions where people are electronically interlinked and the emotional dimension of human interaction is largely screened out. The staff concerned cannot be left to deal with the emotional conflicts associated with change on their own and a new form emotional support needs to be put in place. The leaders within the global enterprise will need to find new innovative means to ensure that the emotional needs of employees are being met. The situation is further complicated when the people work in different time zones. Parker (1998:224) suggests that leaders of global teams need to:
Q Establish an interdependency among team members
Q Recognize and celebrate the diversity of cultures, as constituting a strength within the team
conflicts.
Typical skills that such leaders will need to acquire relate to (Parker 1998:147):
Q Language abilities
Q Communication
Q Socialisation
Q Listening
Q Culture awareness.
The outstanding characteristic of global teamwork, is the combination of technology and new paradigms of management that challenging established norms and practices (Grundy & Ginger 1998:31). Flatter organisational structures, devolving accountabilities, the forming of strategic alliances and mergers on a global scale engender in the first instance new strategic competitive advantages and in the second instance generate a host of communication, cultural, collaboration and teamwork challenges that need to be dealt with by the managerial leaders in forging new value chain linkages across traditional boundaries. (Grundy & Ginger 1998:31). It is acknowledged by Adams (2001) that establishing sound business relationships is one of the key functions of today’s executive leaders. The result in many instances is the rapid building of a report between people who in some instances may never have even actually met face to face. Virtual teaming provides remote facilities and offices with instant access to business and technical skills, which just a few years ago would have placed a strain on the organisation’s limited financial and human resources (Grundy & Ginger 1998:32).
In the ensuing sections some of the important leadership domains identified will be briefly explored in greater detail.
5.3.1 Visionary leadership
and direction. It is professed, by Snyder et al. (1994:18), that “to a leader, vision is a reality that has not yet come to be; it is not a dream.” In this sense the vision provides employees with a realistic picture of a future reality that needs to be brought into being. Nanus (1992:3) asserts that “there is no more powerful engine driving an organisation towards excellence and long-range success than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future, widely shared”. The power of visionary leadership was recognized by Sun Tzu almost 2000 years ago, when the Chines warrior-philosopher stated that “The way, means inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership, so that they will share death and share life, without fear or danger” (Cleary 1988:43). Throughout history there have been many cases where people with a strong vision and belief in something have been prepared to die therefore, in the case of modern corporations this would most certainly be taking things a bit far, but it does demonstrate the lengths that people will go to if they believe very strongly in an envisioned cause.
Strategy in nature is future orientated and not simply an extension of an improved present into the future. Within the strategic management literature the need for a clearly articulated vision is accentuated by various researchers (Bean 1993:13; Boar 1994:7; Lynch 2000:433; Martin 1995:388-390; Weeks & Lessing 1993:68). As far as Lynch (2000:433,443) is concerned, leadership, vision and ethics shape the future purpose of the enterprise, vision being defined as a mental image of a possible and desired future state of the enterprise.
Adams (2001), in describing the CEO’s role in providing strategic direction to the organisation, presents a picture of articulating a vision that challenges the status quo. Snyder et al.(1994:81) note that it is common for people to resist a vision that is different from the status quo. Adams (2001) concurs with this statement, but emphasises that once it becomes clear that the CEO is serious about the vision and its realisation, and that it in effect is essential for the future survival and growth of the enterprise, things begin to change. He is adamant that it is the responsibility of the CEO to provide visible and tangible support for the vision and future direction that has been formulated (Adams 2001).
Selecting and articulating an appropriate vision for an organisation is deemed to be one of the most difficult tasks confronting the leadership of modern day business institutions (Nanus 1992:16). The underlying rationale for a clearly articulated vision, according to Nanus (1992:16-18), are:
Q The right vision attracts commitment and energizes people. Employees need a sense
of future that they are able to commit to, something they believe in and are prepared to work towards. It is a far stronger motivator than financial considerations, as demonstrated by the emotional commitment of people to an environmental or social cause on a voluntary basis. The concept “vision” has an emotional element and holds a promise of a better future, that serves as a driving force that engenders commitment from people
Q The right vision creates meaning in workers’ lives. Vision provides meaning to the work
people do on a day-to-day basis. It is not just another job, it is a job with a sense of purpose. They are part of a team striving towards a desired future state and they understand their role is important, as part of the team, in realising this vision. It engenders a sense of pride, self-actualisation and achievement, which in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a significant motivating force
Q The right vision establishes a standard of excellence. People don’t just get up on a
day and say to themselves “I am going to do a shoddy job”. People want to feel good about their work and themselves. Central to such a feeling of being worthwhile is the realisation that their work is important in terms of what the institution is attempting to achieve. The vision provides a measure by which employees and managers can evaluate their worth to the institution
Q The right vision bridges the present and future. Within the day-to-day activities of the
enterprise it is all too easy to become engrossed in the activities and lose sight of the purpose. Competition is keen, crises occur regularly, and stakeholders seem to be demanding more for less. The CEO as a leader is keenly aware that the right vision transcends the status quo.
people’s search for meaning in their lives, be it executives, managers or employees. A sense of vision embodies a strong emotional commitment that serves as a driving force in peoples lives. It is not just another job they are doing, it is a job with a purpose that provides them with an inner sense of self-actualisation and enhances their self-image. By implication this implies that people need to be able to “buy in” to the vision and make it their own.
Senge (1990:211) argues that “shared visions emerge from personal visions” that are rooted in peoples values, concerns and aspirations. This truth, it is claimed by Senge (1990:211), is often lost by leaders, who are bent on developing a vision within a day. What Senge (1990:211) in effect is saying is that people need to be able to align their own personal aspirations and expectations to the vision formulated for the enterprise. As people come to share and believe in the vision their commitment to the realisation of the vision grows. By implication what is being said is that leaders need to motivate the underling rationale of the vision in terms that employees are not only able to understand, but that has meaning for them in terms of their lives. One such driving force could be the survival of the enterprise in a turbulent world and linking this to the fact that this translates into people having more rewarding jobs in the future.
People need to be able to relate to the vision from a self-interest perspective. Senge (1990:215) claims that leaders intent on building shared visions need to constantly articulate their vision for the organisation and be prepared to ask “will you follow me”. Martin (1995:467) concurs in this regard, by observing that leaders who successfully changed the direction and culture of their institutions lost no opportunity to preach the vision to all stakeholders involved. The message must be clear, easy to understand and consistent.
Visionary leadership, from a strategic management perspective, assumes quite a significant new meaning in terms of the above discussion. It is not something achieved during a one or two day strategy formulation session in the bush or some strategic retreat,
