Organizational theorists often say cultural change and effective collaboration require an alignment of individual and organizational agendas. I usually say that too. But I could be wrong.
How much alignment you can really expect depends on how you define alignment. If you’re looking for lockstep behavior and rote recitation of the company mission statement, well forget it. If by some miracle of coercion or Kool-Aid you able to approximate this, it would be at the complete expense of diversity. So the first disruptive technology or business model to come along would wipe you out.
UC Berkeley Psych professor Charlan Nemeth studies the important role of outsiders and the value of dissenting viewpoints. Her theory is that even progressive, nurturing, successful companies can become so cohesive that they basically take on all the characteristics of a cult, enforcing internal consensus and shunning external stimulation. “Creativity and innovation may require a ‘culture’ that is very different and, in a sense, diametrically opposed to that which encourages cohesion, loyalty, and clear norms of appropriate attitudes and behavior,” she writes.
“Managing Innovation: When Less Is More” California Management Review, Volume 40, No. 1 (Fall 1997)
While a "good company" requires unsurpassed management, product quality, and financial soundness, the "most admired" companies are presumed to also have "a spark that ignites the work force and allows the enterprise to respond readily to change. That ingredient is innovation and all the top companies embrace it passionately." Is this really true? Do our most admired companies emphasize innovation as much as execution? I think not. Most companies, even those considered "visionary," emphasize mechanisms of social control rather than innovation. They recognize the power of clear goals, worker participation, consistent feedback, a cohesive work force, and a reward system that underscores desired behaviors and values. In fact, the "spark" that many companies are likely to ignite is not innovation or risk taking, but rather loyalty and commitment to the company. They attempt to create a cult-like culture involving passion and excitement. Through this path, they may achieve productivity and high morale, but at the same time can thwart creativity, innovation, and an ability "to respond readily to change."
Creativity and innovation may require a "culture" that is very different and, in a sense, diametrically opposed to that which encourages cohesion, loyalty, and clear norms of appropriate attitudes and behavior. It is wrong to assume that the mechanisms of social control that heighten adherence to company rules and expectations can also be easily used to enhance innovation. Desiring and expecting creativity—and even rewarding it—do not necessarily increase its appearance. Motivation and increased effort may permit new variations on a theme, but they are unlikely to stimulate major changes in perspective or reformulation. Quite the contrary. In fact, there is evidence that one must be removed from this social control. One must feel free to "deviate" from expectations, to question shared ways of viewing things, in order to evidence creativity. To use a metaphor from an actual creativity task, one must be able to look "outside the box" to find new insights, e.g., to see a new use for an old product or to recognize a new market.
Minority viewpoints have importance and power, not just for the value of the ideas themselves, but for their ability to stimulate creative thought. Thus, one must learn not only to respect and tolerate dissent, but to "welcome" it. The "trick" is to balance coordinated group activity with an openness to differing views—to create unity in the organization without uniformity.
Recent Comments