Organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they get. Whether good or bad, the outcomes that businesses provide is the result of the match between what they're capable of delivering and what they need
to deliver to meet their clients or users.
By way of example, an organization may need to deliver very high-reliability products, however, if their processes aren't strong enough to build in' reliability, then it will not happen and the results will suffer.
In another case, an organization may need to deliver exceptional customer support but its staff's behaviors may not match the requirement and so, again, the organizational results will suffer.
This report focuses on elements of the Intangible Asset and Human Resources elements of Grant's model - looking at why it is that some organizations have the ability to produce an environment with motivated people and
teams that can collaborate for success, and many others can not.
Why is it that like-for-like organizations with access to individuals of the identical ability levels, with identical equipment and dealing with the exact customers, can acquire such widely differing results?
Why is it that one automotive manufacturer will create cars that sell like'hot cakes' and others go to the wall?
Why is it that hospitals dealing with the exact sorts of patients with the very same sorts of employees and equipment can have such a difference in their mortality prices?
The difference in performance can often be put down to the organizational environment and this manifests itself as artifacts', oncerning the physical performance and operating concepts of a team or organization.
The organizational artifacts are constructed on the norms and behaviors within the organization concerning the ways of acting that are left-handed (or authorized) and subjects which are'taboo'.
Subsequently, these norms and behaviors are influenced by the beliefs and assumptions of teams and individuals concerning the explicit beliefs of people (for example, this is a poor organization to work for') and
implicit cultural assumptions (such as'managers make decisions; we just carry them out').
Creating the perfect environment isn't something which may be done overnight because you're dealing with assumptions and beliefs which might have been ingrained within the organization over several years.
Really, these beliefs are often reinforced daily through management behaviors and activities that strengthen the status quo and these are often seen at the stage an organization would like to really change.
Here are two examples:
1. An organization with a history of treating its employees as amounts' had established an environment with demotivated employees and poor levels of customer care. To rectify the issues with client care,
it established a program to change the way its employees interacted with customers.
A first-team was formed to handle response times in a call center.
The group achieved impressive results and were feeding back to the chief executive when he chased them with the term, "That is great but when can I bank the cheque?"
2. A hospital had introduced a policy of nothing worn beneath the elbow' to reduce the chance of infection.
A senior doctor came on award wearing a shirt that went below the elbow and a nurse approached the doctor to inform him that he had to roll up his sleeves. The doctor responded, "Do not be silly I am in a rush."
The nurse reported this to her Matron and was told, "Oh do not worry, just let it go."
In both cases, the activities of the leaders involved (the chief executive in the first case and the matron at the second) reinforced the prior beliefs and assumptions and, thus, preventing any change in the organizational environment.
In fact, within most organizations, there isn't one single'uniform environment'.
Instead, the organizational environment will differ from team to team, division to division and so forth and the effect of the combination of the many micro-environments
will specify the general environment for the organization.
In this complex organizational environment, leaders at every level can have a large effect on their own'local' environment.
An ineffective and abrasive divisional leader will negatively influence the operation of every component of her/his branch, while a successful team leader of a tiny front-line team within the division might help create a local
environment which produces the incompetence of their divisional leader more bearable for the rest of the team - and vice versa.