Defining corporate culture: what communicators can do to make the intangible tangible.

In management journals, the popular business press and handy-hint newsletters, the word "culture" is championed and applied as the all-purpose explanation for a variety of organisational results. The term is used to explain everything from success to failure, from integration to dissolution, from change resistance to winning adaptability.

Most approaches to organisation and management theory identify "culture" as one of the leading factors on the list of discrete building blocks used to both explain and manipulate desired end results. But is culture tangible? Is it ephemeral? And is it governable? Can culture willingly and consciously be shaped and managed? Can leaders and managers really change culture? These are questions that prey on the corporate mind and complicate decision making.

WHAT IS CULTURE?

There is wider agreement on the definition of culture itself than on how to use and apply it in understanding the unique set of dynamics and human behaviours that characterise and distinguish one organisation from the next.

Culture, in its simplest meaning, is the sum total of how an organisation accomplishes all that it has to do to fulfill its purpose or mission. Culture can be observed in the many ways that things get done, in the processes that everyone in the organisation knows must be followed for work to be accomplished. Culture is embodied in the phrase: "This is the way we do things around here."

Management researcher and writer Fons Trompenaars defines culture as "the way in which a group of people solves problems and resolves dilemmas." This view is a very hands-on, pragmatic approach. Geert Hofstede has described culture in a somewhat more philosophical way: "culture is a deeply rooted value or shared norm, moral or aesthetic principles that guide action and serve as standards to evaluate one's own and others' behaviours."

Both of these definitions, and those of others who work in the management and behavioural sciences, leave one convinced that culture is indeed a "first principle" of organisational functioning. That even though it's not concrete, it is surely a potent force that either fosters and supports or impedes and frustrates.

If one accepts these definitions, then it can be seen that all the overt and subtle patterns of behaviour in organisations weave themselves together to create an unmistakeable personality and identity for the organisation. This personality endures over time, and it is this time-wearing quality that is both the blessing and the curse of culture as an attribute of organisational functioning. If the organisation succeeds over time, it is this abiding culture that is identified as a deeply embedded cause of its capacity to not only cope in challenging times but also to thrive and prosper. The organisation's ability to resist forces that would sap its energy, distract from its mission or weaken its brand are all positive characteristics attributed in the same final analysis to its culture ... because "that is how we do things around here."

If an organisation fails, its culture can be blamed for being change-resistant, closed to new ideas, lacking an innovative spirit and too slow to respond to fast-changing customer needs. Culture is thus seen as closing the windows on life-saving information that would allow the organisation to recognise and deal with environmental forces that have a material impact on its fate.

THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF CULTURE

Every organisation, large or small, public or private, for profit or not-for-profit, has only four basic elements with which to create a living, successful culture for its enterprise. These four elements--strategy, structure, people and process--flow from a clear statement of the organisation's mission or purpose. These are the four elements that leaders, managers, supervisors and employees at all levels must formulate, shape, integrate and manage. Through the interplay of these elements, the culture is formed and reinforced.

* Strategy sets out how resources will be focused and applied to accomplish the organisation's mission.

* Structure determines how the organisation will arrange itself to carry out this strategy to ensure the mission is achieved.

* People are deployed within the structure to carry out the required work.

* Process entails the procedures, the "hows" of work and the way the organisation actually functions.

When these four elements are in balance day in and day out, there is harmonious operation and functioning. The organisation's culture is considered positive and supportive of mission accomplishment. When there is imbalance among these four elements, the organisation's results will be suboptimal. Poorly defined strategy; outdated, poorly designed structures; dysfunctional, inefficient processes of any sort; and a lack of the right people at critical levels and in the right positions will bring the organisation to an untimely end. The obituary will offer the view that something in the culture caused the fatal imbalance and the organisation's subsequent demise.

A TEMPERATE CLIMATE?

At this point it is important to draw a distinction between culture and climate. While culture is long term and hard to change, climate is the opposite: it is short term and highly susceptible to forces at work in any dynamic environment. These forces can be external or internal and range from short-term change in the economic conditions and nature of markets, to the forces of technological, social or demographic change.

For example, an organisation that grants all employees a 10 percent pay increase will experience a positive spike in the internal climate. Conversely, a necessary redundancy exercise can cause a negative climate in a matter of hours. Climate is often used interchangeably with culture and that is wrong. One could argue that many slices of "climate" over time could, and do, provide insight into the enduring culture--but it must be over time. Too often, when a short look at climate is developed through some form of surveying, the naive observer is tempted to hypothesise from those results a general statement about culture.

This view does not mean that culture cannot be studied or assessed in something short of a longitudinal study. But extreme care is called for in forming conclusions based on only one survey or one set of interviews. Studying the culture of an organisation is a complex process that requires data gathering from a variety of sources and in several different ways.

A WINDOW ON CULTURE

There are, however, windows on culture that, in the hands of a skilled interpreter, offer insights into the heart of an organisation. There are ways of developing a vocabulary for understanding the way an organisation works. Assessment around five characteristics is a valid way to begin. These characteristics have been derived from detailed studies of organisations and their dynamics. They have been tested and validated because they can be observed from the outside and assessed by those on the inside as ways in which employees behave and respond. They are:

* achievement (the collective and individual drive to produce results)

* environment (a process- or outcome-driven approach to accomplishing work)

* perspective (whether traditional or innovative)

* power (if it is shared or retained)

* risk (whether avoided or encouraged).

Responses to a diagnostic instrument built around these characteristics can provide a strong base for acquiring a picture of an organisation's culture.

SHAPING CULTURE

There are many process elements that must be integrated to shape and develop culture. These elements range from basics such as the design of reward systems, including pay, benefits, performance management, and training and development, to the more strategic casting of vision and defining values. But all of these ultimately depend on the act of communicating their purpose as well as how to operationalise each program for management, supervision and employees to the very parameters of the enterprise. Thus, communication moves to centre stage in the matter of culture.

One of the clearest manifestations of culture is that of communication. Communication as a process, a function and a result is both a reflection and a cause of the organisation's culture. How an organisation conceives and manages communication does more to tell about its culture than any other single process element. How the organisation approaches communication policy, staffing, planning and budgeting paints a clear picture of how it thinks of itself, and how it relates to employees and its external constituencies--shareholders, customers and the public at large. One of the most important aspects in this regard is whether the values of the organisation's external brand are communicated to, and reflected by, the internal behaviour of its employees.

Winning the hearts and minds of employees creates a value chain that can result in improved customer service, productivity and mission accomplishment. Victory requires communication planning of the most strategic nature; it requires sustained and comprehensive activity across a spectrum of communication channels and stakeholders, from face-to-face to mass communication activity. Only then can culture be shaped to serve the needs of the organisation and its constituencies.

Openness, a willingness to actively gather perception and opinion, a desire to share information, communication planning, the integration of technology and preparation and development of supervisors to communicate effectively with their people--all paint a clear picture of the organisation's culture. But what is often forgotten in discussions of culture is that these are also the very tools that can help guide and shape a new culture. Communication is both a reflection of culture and a strategic tool that shapes culture.

COMMUNICATING CHANGE

When an organisation chooses to express itself--irrespective of the topic--it is telling its internal and external constituencies something about its unique character and its aspirations. The outgoing message reflects the culture of the organisation and also further reinforces or helps change the very culture that is giving rise to the substance and style of the communication.

One standout example is an international oil company that looked into the future and saw several decades of profound challenge ahead. It needed to move quickly to understand just how the strengths and weaknesses of its current culture would facilitate or impede changing future culture.

The first step entailed a far-reaching analysis of how the organisation dealt with people, made decisions and the perceived reality (on the part of employees) of how well it lived up to its stated values. Further, it looked at its capacity to promote innovation, its way of defining and relating to customers and other critical success factors. Each was identified and mapped.

Armed with an enormous amount of information, the company set up six study teams to create a comprehensive strategy and process-change programs that would put the wheels in motion for pervasive change efforts. The teams recognised the critical importance of understanding the operative current culture. Team members also recognised that executive and management behaviours continued to reinforce the "old" culture. And it became clear that it was imperative to reach not only the rational (head) side of people, but that it was also necessary to reach "hearts" in order to bring understanding that leads to cooperation and willingness to genuinely support process changes that ultimately reshape culture.

One factor emerged as common to both the analysis and solution phases in the work of these six high-level teams: communication, as both a contributing factor in current process weaknesses and a critical ingredient in the solutions put forth by the study teams. Although some basic communication programming and elements were in place, the efforts proved to be disjointed and more concerned with tactical proficiency than with strategic linkage to business issues and change management.

Thus, the collective focus of the work teams turned to communication. A joint study ensued, putting communication intent and process under the microscope. Among other recommendations, the teams identified the early need for comprehensive, two-way communication as the primary ingredient in change solutions that ranged from structure, to customers and employees, to research and development, to product solutions. The teams established a communication mandate that dealt not only with the specific needs of communicating about each initiative, but also, and more importantly, with rethinking just what had to be done to make communication effectiveness a reality throughout the organisation.

Recommendations to management included chartering an internal communication function, formulating a policy for open communication, establishing procedures for two-way communication, developing a communication-training curriculum for managers and supervisors and measuring and assessing all program elements.

The ultimate goal of these efforts is to reshape the culture of the entire organisation for as broad and as deep as the definition of culture can be applied. The oil company's leadership understands that in order to make such vast change in a finite time frame, it needs to pull as many levers as possible. It also recognises that only one organisational process provides the pervasive, inclusive potential to bring about the needed reorientation, and that is communication, with a capital "C."--P.S.

Paul Sanchez, ABC, APR, is a worldwide partner for Mercer Human Resource Consulting based in London, England. He can be reached at [e-mail].