Stay informed!
Changing Organisational Behaviour
By Vic Hewson and Paul Stewart. Aside from “our people are our greatest asset”, is there a more ubiquitous corporate statement than “organisational culture is what differentiates us from the rest”?
In launching the results of its Corporate Reputations survey some years ago, Fortune Magazine said “There is growing concern that companies cannot live by numbers alone…the one thing that set the top ranking companies in the survey apart is their robust cultures”.
The leaders of true success stories such as Southwest Airlines have consistently argued that culture is something that you must work harder on than anything else. If we understand this, why then have so many organisations regularly failed in their efforts to reshape organisational behaviour in line with their desired values? In many cases it is because they never succeed in dealing with the root determinant of behaviour – gaining commitment to values by changing beliefs. Rather, they simply try to outlaw incompatible behaviour and force compliance.
It makes sense ...
Organisational culture is not represented by what is prescribed in mission, vision and value statements. Rather, it is depicted by the spontaneous and natural behaviour displayed within the organisation.
One thing we can say about another person’s behaviour is that it makes sense to that individual. Even if they are being rude or apathetic, at some level it makes sense to them to behave in this way, because if it didn’t make sense, then they wouldn’t behave like that. If we observe this behaviour and don’t relate to it, it will be because we have a different understanding of the context i.e. we fail to see how the other person is making sense of their world. People are committed to the behaviours that make sense to “them”.
What do organisations do ...
Many organisations try to change behaviours and attitudes of their people by directly putting pressure on them to behave in the desired manner. “Behave like this or else ……”. Then, if the organisation is able to apply sufficient pressure, the people will conform to the desired behaviour. But, in effect, the organisation has forced these people to behave in a way that doesn’t make sense to them. If these new behaviours made sense they would already be using them!
While the organisation may have succeeded in getting compliance, there is no commitment to the desired behaviours. Consequently, if the pressure is taken off, the people will revert to the previous behaviours that (still) make sense to them. Compliance may be effective in achieving short-term change, but it is unlikely to result in any long lasting change. It also sets up resistance and sometimes, covert sabotage.
Compliance based organisations can be readily recognised – they have prescriptive processes, restrict initiative, rely on audits and measure process rather than results. They will tend to use performance appraisal systems to control and achieve conformity instead of seeking future improvement in performance.
The commitment approach in action – a Case Study.
A good example of a commitment based approach is demonstrated in the way that one organisation, Tranzrail, dealt with the issue of staff theft.
In the early 1990s, the culture within Tranzrail – New Zealand’s soon to be privatized railways company – was one which embraced staff perking and tolerated theft by the public from the company. This was clearly inconsistent with its prescribed values of honesty, integrity and trust, and so the company embarked upon the process of reshaping organisational behaviour.
The traditional model employed by many similar organisations is a classic compliance approach. For example, a large US Railway Company employs 212 Railway Police – armed officers, employed full time to prevent and investigate incidents of pillage and theft by staff. If Tranzrail, had followed this model in 1991, they would have needed to employ 40 full time security guards.
The expectation is that theft by staff would be reduced because of the “pressure” created by the Security Staff. In reality, it is more likely that staff would simply have become more innovative. Why? Because within the organisation’s culture, the value around honesty in Tranzrail – their belief - would have continued to be that “perking” (theft) was largely acceptable. “Perking” made sense. For the same reason, Tranzrail would have had to maintain the “compliance” pressure through the 40 security guards indefinitely.
Instead, Tranzrail opted for an organisational culture model based on commitment, where behaviour change follows changes in people’s beliefs. Tranzrail changed the behaviour by first changing “what made sense” to staff in respect to perking.
The strategy in Tranzrail revolved around an education programme that resulted in staff changing their understanding in respect to the concept of honesty. Initially, this focused upon honesty and safety in the personal home and within the family unit. Having built that belief, it was then simply a case of extending the definition of “family” to incorporate the company and its staff. When that change in thinking occurred the level of “perking” naturally decreased because it no longer “made sense” to individuals to see theft as a “perk”.
Does the Commitment Model Work ?
At an individual level the evidence is very clear. Long lasting behaviour changes are far more likely if based on a change in understanding. Often people will try to change by grabbing hold of the behaviour in the conscious and by sheer force of will and discipline impose upon themselves new ways of behaving. This technique has a high failure rate – not being able to give up smoking, failing to stick with fitness programmes are common examples.
In business the evidence is not as readily available simply because many organisations continue to rely on compliance strategies. In the Tranzrail example however, the results were unequivocable. In a 12 month period;
- pillage was reduced by 59%,
- tarpaulin recoveries increased from an average of 20 per year to over 220, (a large cost saving to the company)
- staff reports of offending against Tranzrail by members of the public increased from 38 per year to 167,
- 86% of staff believed security had improved.
And all this was achieved without employing a single extra security guard in the organisation.
So why isn’t the commitment approach sexy?
The commitment model is not readily adopted within organisations. There are a number of possible reasons for this:
Compliance is easier to implement. Compliance requires little understanding of the causes of existing behaviours and simply requires the application of pressure and sanctions for deviation.
Compliance can achieve faster results. In fact the results can sometimes be almost immediate.
Compliance seems to make sense – there is a logic to the view “behave this way otherwise the consequence will be ....” Advocates of compliance can also point to the fact that the behaviours have changed.
Organisations have traditionally used compliance perhaps resulting in an organisational belief that this is “how things are done.”
The increasing pace of change encourages Managers to resort to immediate short-term fixes.
Why is commitment better:
Commitment results in long lasting change;
While commitment can initially take longer, it requires less resource over time. In contrast, the compliance approach needs the continued application of the resource that is causing the pressure for change.
While commitment can initially take longer, it requires less resource over time. In contrast, the compliance approach needs the continued application of the resource that is causing the pressure for change.
Commitment creates less staff resistance to change resulting in:
- better morale
- less covert resistance (taking sick leave, sabotage etc)
- more empowered staff
- more informed work force
- better take up of the desired changes
Making commitment work ...
The underlying philosophy with the commitment approach is that a change in belief or value will naturally be followed by a change in behaviour. Therefore the essence of any strategy is concerned with educating or informing staff so that the desired change in belief or value will take place.
A common mistake is to start on this process without doing the work to understand existing beliefs and values. It is important to know what the starting point is so that the education programme can build on what is already there.
In Tranzrail the starting place was a relatively commonly held value around the concept of honesty. The staff were not dishonest, but perking was simply not seen as theft. It was something different. However another value in Tranzrail was around the importance of family – family at home and the family of “Rail.” Therefore it was possible to create an educative journey that started from the importance of family – safety at home, looking after children, safety in public places, preventing burglaries at home etc to a destination where it made sense to have the same regard for people and property in the workplace.
The results speak for themselves! And as companies such Southwest Airlines have consistently demonstrated, once staff are “committed” to your values, then you truly will be able to claim that “organisational culture is what does differentiates you from the rest”.
Copyright Vic Hewson - Teamworks Pacific and Paul Stewart - Onbrand Partners.
