Results Organizational Culture Profiler

DEMO

Back Download

Graph Organizational Culture Profiler

Person oriented

Task oriented

Egletarian

Hiearchical

Guided Missile (Task)

14%

29%

Incubator (Person)

43%

Family (Power)

57%

Eiffel Tower (Role)

43%

Current

Ideal

Version: Standard ocp,ocp

Based on your responses to the diagnostic questions, here is your organization profile.

Your profile

The horizontal axis in the profile relates to concern for people (on the left) to concern for results (right). The vertical axis from hierarchical leadership (bottom) through to participative (top).

The net result of the way any one organization has developed its corporate culture over time, depending on its mission, founding entrepreneur, leadership style, its environment etc, often will have led to more emphasis on some values than others. In the extremes, the dominant competing values give rise to the four organization stereotypes but 'real' organizations usually display aspects of all stereotypes to greater or lesser extent.

Your profile describes the way things are done around the organization. You might want to reflect on:

the gap between your current and ideal cultures, and thus the tensions that arise between your current and ideal cultures.
what your current corporate culture means for other (corporate) cultures your organization interacts with (e.g. suppliers, customers etc).

The four quadrants represent the four different extreme types of corporate culture we distinguish. The coloured regions in each quadrant indicate the relative degree to which you have rated:

the current situation in your organization and
the ideal corporate culture.

The larger the quadrant, the more you adhere to that type of corporate culture. Click the buttons in each quadrant for a definition and explanation of each stereotype. Also tap or mouseover the graph to view the results of "Your new future organization".

Explanation underlying the Trompenaar's model of Corporate Culture

Culture is to the organization what personality is to the individual - a hidden yet unifying theme that provides meaning, direction and mobilization that can exert a decisive influence on the overall ability of the organization to deal with the challenges it faces.
Our interest here is in examining the interpretations employees give to their relationships with each other and with the organization as a whole. Thus we are all concerned with issues such as:

How does one learn, change and resolve conflicts?
How do we motivate and reward people in the different corporate images?
How can we facilitate different functional areas with differing cultures work together effectively ~ such as research staff with marketing?

A corporate culture has a profound effect on organization effectiveness, because it influences how decisions are made, human resources are used and how the organization responds to the environment.

Trompenaars' 4 Corporate Cultures

Our model identifies four competing organizational cultures which are derived from two related dimensions:

Task or Person (high formalization versus low formalization)
Hierarchical or Egalitarian (high versus low centralization)

Combining these dimensions gives us four possible culture types.
Note that any single (real) organization (such as your own) is likely to show characteristics of more than one stereotype ~ but often with one that is dominant.

Corporate Culture Tensions

Many established models for corporate change tend to develop change strategies based on transforming the organization from the current to ideal culture. These models can be criticized for two principal and recurring reasons:

they tend to underestimate the difficulty involved in achieving or sustaining the change, and
they tend to discard the current situation in favor of a new future and thus throwing out the best of the what already exists.

Corporate Culture Dilemmas

In contrast, our approach is to consider the tensions between these extremes. All organizations need stability and change tradition and innovation, public and private interest, planning and laissez-faire, order and freedom, growth and decay. The change problem from the ‘current’ to ‘ideal’ situation cannot be “solved” in the sense of simply being eliminated. These differences that generate tensions are the source of a series of dilemmas.
Managing change in our framework is about reconciling these dilemmas. In this way we can overcome the limitations of current change models because we are neither simply throwing away the past, nor seeking to change a well embedded resistant self-preserving corporate culture.
All organizations need consolidation and growth, long term and short term focus, tradition and innovation, planning and laissez-faire, order and freedom, stability and change, etc. Organizational culture is the result of the way the fight between these competing values manifests.

How things are done around the organization provides meaning and direction that can exert a decisive influence on the overall ability of the organization to deal with the challenges it faces - especially with a merger or acquisition.

Current

Person oriented

Task oriented

Egletarian

Hiearchical

Guided Missile (Task)

Incubator (Person)

Family (Power)

Eiffel Tower (Role)

Task Culture (14.3%), Person Culture (42.9%),
Power Culture (0%), Role Culture (42.9%)

Overview

Double Cultures

Your score shows that you think the predominant orientation within your company is both the Role Culture - Eiffel Tower and Person Culture - Incubator orientations. This is unusual as in most organizations one stereotype often dominates - although others may be present to a lesser degree. Of course, your situation might also be explained by your view that different parts of the organization may exhibit different characteristics.

When there are differences across the organization like you indicate, this can result in tensions between the various factions because there will be different management styles and inconsistencies in the way that business is done across the organization.

Current

Remember that the extreme implementation of any extreme model in an organization might lead to an over dominance of that stereotype and the management styles associated with it.

Thus:

Eiffel Tower-type corporate cultures underpin the consistency that has led many large German conglomerates to prosper.
Family-type corporate cultures, that combine centralized decision-making and flexibility, have contributed tremendously to the success of Eastern Asian economies.
Guided Missile type organizations, with their focus on goals, strategies, and task-orientation, have achieved excellent economic performance.
Incubator-type corporate cultures foster the creativity that is imperative for the fast growth of companies in the software and electronics industry.

Ideal

Person oriented

Task oriented

Egletarian

Hiearchical

Guided Missile (Task)

Incubator (Person)

Family (Power)

Eiffel Tower (Role)

Task Culture (28.6%), Person Culture (7.1%),
Power Culture (57.1%), Role Culture (7.1%)

Overview

For your new future organization the corporate orientation is mainly Power Culture - Family. It is contributing significantly to the overall culture.
You can now explore the consequences of the similarities and differences between the two cultures.

Working with others

When you have to work with people who are used to models other than the Family, they might have a different perception of effective leadership and work styles.

People who are accustomed to Eiffel Tower type cultures may not be used to the application of personal power and influence to overrule formal structures, systems, and rules.
People who are accustomed to a Guided Missile type culture may not be used to the existence of powerful, centralized authorities who expect respect for status. They may also not be used to a more personalized relationship with you as a manager, business partner, supplier, or customer.
People who are accustomed to an Incubator type culture may not be used to the importance of hierarchies, personal power, and status.

Therefore, in order to find out which management styles and tools will work in different environments, it is important to understand the language of other types of organizations.

Current

Person oriented

Task oriented

Egletarian

Hiearchical

Guided Missile (Task)

Incubator (Person)

Family (Power)

Eiffel Tower (Role)

Task Culture (14.3%), Person Culture (42.9%),
Power Culture (0%), Role Culture (42.9%)

Overview

Double Cultures

Current

Remember that the extreme implementation of any extreme model in an organization might lead to an over dominance of that stereotype and the management styles associated with it.

Thus:

Eiffel Tower-type corporate cultures underpin the consistency that has led many large German conglomerates to prosper.
Family-type corporate cultures, that combine centralized decision-making and flexibility, have contributed tremendously to the success of Eastern Asian economies.
Guided Missile type organizations, with their focus on goals, strategies, and task-orientation, have achieved excellent economic performance.
Incubator-type corporate cultures foster the creativity that is imperative for the fast growth of companies in the software and electronics industry.

Ideal

Person oriented

Task oriented

Egletarian

Hiearchical

Guided Missile (Task)

Incubator (Person)

Family (Power)

Eiffel Tower (Role)

Task Culture (28.6%), Person Culture (7.1%),
Power Culture (57.1%), Role Culture (7.1%)

Overview

Working with others

When you have to work with people who are used to models other than the Family, they might have a different perception of effective leadership and work styles.

People who are accustomed to Eiffel Tower type cultures may not be used to the application of personal power and influence to overrule formal structures, systems, and rules.
People who are accustomed to a Guided Missile type culture may not be used to the existence of powerful, centralized authorities who expect respect for status. They may also not be used to a more personalized relationship with you as a manager, business partner, supplier, or customer.
People who are accustomed to an Incubator type culture may not be used to the importance of hierarchies, personal power, and status.

Therefore, in order to find out which management styles and tools will work in different environments, it is important to understand the language of other types of organizations.

Tensions

You will have now learnt about the differences between the current corporate culture of your organization and that of your intended future. Established models for change would then develop a change strategy based on transforming the culture of the acquired organization to that of the acquirer - or better performing culture. These models can be criticized for two principal and recurring reasons:

they tend to underestimate the difficulty involved in achieving or sustaining the change and
they tend to discard the current situation in favor of a new future and thus throwing out the best of the what already exists.

Dilemmas

In contrast, our approach is to consider the tensions between these extremes. All organizations need stability and change, tradition and innovation, public and private interest, planning and laissez-faire, order and freedom, growth and decay. The change problem from the old legacy organization to the new future cannot be “solved” in the sense of simply being eliminated. These differences that generate tensions are the source of a series of dilemmas.

Managing change in our methodology is about reconciling these dilemmas. In this way we can overcome the limitations of current change models because we are neither simply throwing away the past, nor seeking to change a well embedded resistant self-preserving corporate culture which made you successful in the past.

Frequently recurring dilemmas

For different combinations of the culture of your current organization and that of your new intended future organization, our research reveals a number of frequently recurring dilemmas deriving from the tensions between them.

We invite you to explore these dilemmas - so first please select the combination relevant to your change management scenario. You can also explore other combinations to help widen your understandings. We also give a headline suggestion about how each can be accommodated.

You should reflect that the tensions from different combinations derive directly from differences in the values of the two organization stereotypes.

Reconciliation and resolution

Realizing the business benefits of a change programme:

This quick assessment based on only 14 questions is obviously limited in terms of reliability and we would normally recommend our comprehensive OVP (Organization Values Profiler) webtool based on some 46 diagnostics and responses collected from relevant employees across representative areas of the organization.

The conceptual framework and methodology is the same - namely the identification of the competing demands that will arise from the respective corporate cultures which will manifest as dilemmas.

Realizing the business benefits involves reconciling these important dilemmas so that synergy is obtained by harnessing the benefits of your current organizations practice and envisaged future and avoiding extremes.

To reiterate, this new approach to Change Management seeks to overcome the limitations of a more traditional view of based solely on setting targets with classical change work groups.

Merger/acquisitions

In spite of well developed processes for due diligence, many mergers and acquisitions are still failing to deliver the expected business benefits due to clashes in corporate culture. Other versions of this Tool enabled clients to explore our the same approach to compare the corporate cultures of the two organizations and then integrate the two cultures to harness the best of both.

Recruitment and Careers

Further versions of this Tool provide comparisons of the corporate culture of an organization with the corporate culture that job applicants would prefer to work in. It can be used by employers to filter job applicants or separately by job seekers seeking employment in a work environment that matches their own values or how they can best contribute by reconciling the two.

Management: Your organization would have a preference for authority that is based on formal titles from the right educational institute whilst n the organization you would like to integrate with, managers authority is based on who you know and personal characteristics like charisma and dedication.	Reconciliation: Management needs to use their personality and charisma in order to make sense of their formal titles and education.
Organizational Logic Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of being precise and reliable in the definition of efficient means versus your intended future would stress the importance of knowing people to get things done through relationships.	Reconciliation: Develop crucial systems and procedures the executions of which is done by well-connected management.
Motivation Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of increasing expertise in doing a reliable job versus your intended future would stress the importance long-term loyalty and commitment.	Reconciliation: Members apply their expertise to the advantage of increasing the power of their colleagues.
Decision Making: You would work in an environment where it is important to keep decisions focused on getting the most efficient end result based on the involvement of experts whilst your intended future organization would stipulate that decisions should be made by teams based on consensus.	Reconciliation: Have the most expert-driven and efficient decisions made by teams finding consensus.

Management: Your organization would have a preference for managers whose authority is based on their educational degree and expertise whilst in your intended future organization, managers tend to like brain storming of creative people in self-organizing teams.	Reconciliation: Hold the experts responsible for the reliability of their innovative output
Organizational Logic: Your organization would strive for a consistent focus on being an expert and as such reliable in your role fulfillment whilst your intended future would suggest that it is important to have a process of learning and innovative solutions.	Reconciliation: Ensure that the organization is where roles are described in a very sharp way and aimed at learning and innovation.
Motivation: Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of increasing your expertise in doing a reliable job versus your intended future would stress the importance of intrinsic rewards such as self-development and creativity.	Reconciliation: Use creativity and knowledge to build reliable systems and procedures enabling them to become even better in their creations.
Decision Making: You would work in an environment where it is important to keep decisions focused on getting the most efficient end result by involving experts whilst your intended future organization would stipulate that decisions are made by self-organizing teams.	Reconciliation: Have self-organizing teams jam around the most expert-driven and efficient decisions.

Management: Your organization would have a preference for managing change through clear procedures and job descriptions and push towards the objective in mind whilst in your intended future, managers change principle is based on getting the task done and pulled by the result.	Reconciliation: Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have clear end results in mind and use reliable descriptions of how to get there.
Organizational Logic: Your organization would strive for to focus on how to deploy the most efficient means to get the job done whilst your intended future organization would suggest that an effective goal-orientation around task makes the means how to get there less important.	Reconciliation: Make reliable means and intermediate steps part of the road map.
Motivation: Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of expertise and your contribution to efficiency versus your intended future would stress that it is all about getting the job done regardless how you get there	Reconciliation: Describe means in terms of expertise and reliability in its application to get to the goal.
Decision Making: You would work in an environment where it is important to base your decisions on efficiency and expertise of the matter whilst your intended future would stipulate that decisions are made quickly for the benefit of getting the task done.	Seek to increase the depth and reliability of decision-making by involving goal getters in the decision-making process

Management: Your organization would have a preference for authority is personally ascribed to the leader such as his network whilst in your intended future organization, managers authority is ascribed to the role and the expertise needed to fulfill it.	Reconciliation: Leadership needs to understand the political aspects of the technical activities they manage. They become servant leaders of experts.
Organizational Logic: Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of long-term loyalty and commitment and know-who versus your intended future would stress the importance of expertise and reliability of role execution	Reconciliation: Get the support of Management for the implementation of crucial systems and procedures.
Motivation: Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of Long-term loyalty and commitment versus your intended future would stress the importance of increasing expertise in doing a reliable job.	Reconciliation: Members apply their power to the advantage of increasing the expertise of their colleagues.
Decision Making: You would work in an environment where decisions are made by teams based on consensus whilst your intended future organization would stipulate that it is important to keep decisions focused on getting the most efficient end result based on the involvement of experts.	Reconciliation: Have teams find consensus around the most expert-driven and efficient decisions.

Management: Your organization would have a preference for authority that is personally ascribed to the leader such as his network whilst in your intended future, managers authority is based his or her effectiveness in the development of the creativity of individuals	Reconciliation: Get the support of the leaders so they underline themselves the importance of learning and creativity. They become servant leaders of learning
Organizational Logic: Your organization would strive for an environment in which networking and getting things done through people is prevailing whilst your intended future organization would suggest that it is important to focus on learning and innovative solutions .	Reconciliation: Take the best practices from the past, codify them, and apply them to the present learning environment
Motivation: Your organization’s working environment would be based on the importance of long-term loyalty and commitment versus your intended future would stress the importance of intrinsic rewards such as self-development and creativity	Reconciliation: Members are personally held accountable to motivate creative individuals and creating learning environments
Decision Making: You would work in an environment where decisions are made by teams based on consensus whilst your intended future organization would stipulate that it is important to keep decisions focused on getting the most creative end result.	Reconciliation: Have teams finding consensus around the most networked and creative decisions.