Organisational Dialogue - Assignment Example

Organisational Dialogue - Schein (1993, p. 40) argues that “dialogue is necessary as a vehicle for understanding cultures and subcultures, and that organisational learning will ultimately depend upon such cultural understanding.” Do you agree with this statement? Why? Why not? 1. Introduction The potentials of businesses to standardize their market position can be affected by a series of factors. Usually, hostile conditions in a firm’s internal or external environment can cause severe delays to the realization of organizational plans. The promotion of dialogue in the workplace can help employees to understand the cultures related to their organization, meaning not just the culture of the organization but also the cultures of employees. The use of the above practice can gradually lead to the empowerment of the organization as a learning organization, an assumption which is also derived from the literature published in this field and which is presented below. Under these terms, the view of Schein that dialogue can help to the understanding of cultures and to the enforcement of organizational learning can be considered as fully justified. The analysis of the role of cultures and learning within organizations can help to realize the close relationship between cultures and learning, as elements of modern organizations, and their dependency on dialogue. It should be noted though that the above relationship may not be standardized across organizations in different markets, due to the different pressures that these organizations have to face. 2. Evaluation of the statement of Schein in regard to dialogue and its relationship with culture and learning, as aspects of modern organizations 2.1 Culture in organizations – characteristics and role In the context of organizational environment, culture can be described as ‘the values, norms and ways of behaving which organization members share’ (Stellman 1998, p.1992). Traditionally, culture has been related to organizational success. Firms that emphasize on culture tend to achieve their objectives easier and to have more prospects for future growth, compared to their rivals who do not adequately value culture. However, in order for culture to support organizational growth it should ‘be aligned with organizational strategy and the needs of the external environment’ (Daft and Marcic 2010, p.69). This means that the characteristics of culture cannot be standardized, an issue also discussed below. In practice, four types of culture have been identified in modern organizations: ‘adaptability, achievement, involvement and consistency’ (Daft and Marcic 2010, p.69). Other types of culture can also appear in organizations in case that the conditions in the external environment set specific requirement in terms of organization culture (Daft and Marcic 2010). An important characteristic of culture is its relationship with leadership. In fact, it has been revealed that culture and leadership have a strong relationship, at such level that sometimes culture is used as a synonymous of leadership (Schein 2010). Figure 1 - Schein’s iceberg model of culture (Source: Simpson 2013) The role of culture within organizations can be understood using the iceberg model o culture, as developed by Schein. The particular model is presented in Figure 1 below. The model of Schein in regard to culture is based on the following rule: ‘not all aspects of culture are visible’ (Baumuller 2007, p.155). In fact, the key part of culture, as reflected in a person’s beliefs, values and assumptions, can exist only in the field of consciousness (Baumuller 2007). Third persons cannot be aware of the characteristics of the above part of culture, which is related to the cognitive abilities of each person (Baumuller 2007). The fact that the particular part of culture is not visible cannot lead to the assumption that this part of culture cannot be influenced by the external environment (Baumuller 2007). However, the influences of the external environment in the ‘hidden part of culture’ (Baumuller 2007, p.155), as represented in the Iceberg model of culture, cannot be clear to others. The Iceberg model of Schein, as explained above, reveals an important fact: in modern organizations culture cannot be fully controlled (Newberry 2008). A framework setting the key cultural characteristics of each organization can be introduced in each organization; still, the level at which culture will be actually promoted within the particular organization cannot be estimated in advance, being vulnerable to changes and turbulences in the organizational environment, internal and external (Newberry 2008). In addition, the model of Schein indicates the variability of culture’s characteristics, as appeared in each organization (Newberry 2008). This variability is made clear through the following fact: Artifacts, as part of the Iceberg model, refers to ‘all the phenomena that one sees, hears and feels’ (Newberry 2008, p.41). In other words, culture in each organization can be expressed using different means: a firm can use a logo for showing its culture while another firm may use a song which has been related to the firm’s history within its industry. From this point of view, understanding culture can be quite difficult. The promotion of dialogue in the workplace could help employees to understand the authentic characteristics and role of culture, as aligned with each organization’s mission and objectives (Newberry 2008). 2.2 Organizational learning – overview and relationship with culture Learning, as an element of the organization, does not reflect qualities and processes similar to those related to individuals. More specifically, in the context of organization, learning serves specific needs, such as the increase of knowledge available for various organizational activities and the improvement of organizational operations (Lapre and Nemhard 2011, p.5). Another differentiation of learning within organizations compared to learning related to individuals is the following: learning, as a human activity, may be paused for a period of time, which can be long (Lapre and Nemhard 2011, p.5). In organizations, the learning process cannot be paused (Lapre and Nemhard 2011, p.5) but needs to be in progress as long as the organization exists. In addition, organizational learning can be highly affected by the performance of IT involved in the learning process; for individuals learning cannot be affected, at least not at an important level, by the availability or the performance of IT systems (Krawinkel 2008). Moreover, the success of schemes promoting organizational learning is usually depended on the level of the support provided by a high number of people, meaning especially employees in various organizational departments (Sessa and London 2006). For individuals, the success of learning process is not depended on others, unless from the tutor (Sessa and London 2006). On the other hand, emphasizing on learning cannot secure the success of an organization (Jang 2008). Learning can only increase ‘the chances for a firm’s survival in the market’ (Jang 2008, p.113). When developing the learning process within organizations, managers need to take into consideration five factors, as these factors can highly affect the performance of the particular process (Jang 2008). These factors, which are presented in Figure 2 below, have been identified by Senge in 1990 (Jang 2008). The elements of Senge’s model are entitled as disciplines and reflect the factors that can influence the structure and performance of the learning process within each organization (Jang 2008). An important point of Senge’s model is the following: Shared Vision and Team Learning are two of the disciplines included in Senge’s model. Both these disciplines require the communication between the learners. It is implied that without communication between the learners, the learning process cannot be fully developed. The model of Senge in regard to organizational learning verifies the relationship between learning and communication, i.e. dialogue. The specific relationship is further analyzed in the next section. As for the relationship between learning and culture no doubts can exist. In addition, the fact that ‘culture needs to be share among people verifies the dependency of learning on culture’ (John 2002, p.175). In any case, organizational culture sets the term under which learning can be promoted within each organization (King 2009). In other words, learning cannot be promoted within a particular organization unless the organization’s culture includes relevant provision (King 2009). Figure 2 - Senge’s five learning disciplines (Source: http://www.thechangeforum.com/Learning_Disciplines.htm) 2.3 How dialogue can affect organizational learning and culture? In order to understand the power of dialogue to affect the organizational learning and culture it would be necessary to refer to the role of dialogue within modern organizations. The promotion of dialogue within organizations is a result of the dependency of organizations on communication (Champoux 2010). For example, checking the quality of the products sold by a particular organization requires the dialogue between the employees of the seller and the buyer (Champoux 2010). In the above case, communication is used as tool for strategic control, focusing on the identification of potential failures in the manufacturing or delivery processes (Kreitner 2009). From another point of view, dialogue can be necessary in order to be informed for a particular issue, related to the operations of the organization, such as the market prices of shares in a particular Stock Market. The use of communication in the above way reflects the value of communication as ‘a tool for transferring information’ (Walker 2010, p.18). It is made clear that dialogue, as a communication tool, is a key element of the organizational environment at the point that it is necessary for developing a high range of daily operations and for promoting various aspects of business strategy. Dialogue is also necessary for promoting organizational culture. In fact, as noted above culture is based on the sharing of vision, an activity which is also related to organizational learning. In this context, culture cannot be promoted without the intervention of dialogue. As for organizational learning, its dependency on culture, which is based on dialogue, leads to the following result: learning becomes highly depended on dialogue. Supporting culture, dialogue manages to intervene in the learning process at such level that the completion of the particular process without the use of dialogue is not feasible. 3. Conclusion The interaction between organizational learning and culture, as analyzed above, cannot be doubted. Still, the following issue needs to be made clear: culture does not have the same power within all organizations. Various factors, such as the leadership style and the strong market turbulences can lead to the limitation of power of culture within modern organizations. Learning, as a critical element of the organization, is also likely to affect by the factors mentioned above. Using dialogue the leaders of modern businesses can support culture and learning even if the conditions in the organizational environment are hostile for such initiatives. In addition, it has been proved that learning cannot be promoted within an organization unless it is supported by organizational culture; in firms where culture is opposed to all aspects of the learning process, the value of learning for organizational growth cannot be accepted. It is for this reason that the view of Schein that dialogue is necessary for understanding cultures within organizations is considered as quite accurate. The issues discussed throughout the paper could be taken into consideration for understanding the relationship between culture and learning, as this relationship can be benefited by the promotion of dialogue across each organization. In any case, supporting dialogue, as a tool for communicating and for resolving various organizational problems, is a practice that can highly benefit an organization, either in the short or the long term. References Baumuller, M., 2007. Managing Cultural Diversity: An Empirical Examination of Cultural Networks and Organizational Structures As Governance Mechanisms in Multinational Corporations. Bern: Peter Lang. Champoux, J., 2010. Organizational Behavior: Integrating Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. 4th ed. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Daft, R. and Marcic, D., 2010. Understanding Management. 7th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Jang, H., 2008. Themes and Issues as Reflected in Human Performance Technology Literature: A Content Analysis. London: ProQuest. John, D., 2002. Organisational Learning and Effectiveness. London: Routledge. Krawinkel, B., 2008. The Importance of Organizational Learning in Change Processes. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. King, W., 2009. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. New York: Springer. Kreitner, R., 2009. Management. 11th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Lapre, M. and Nemhard, I., 2011. Inside the Organizational Learning Curve: Understanding the Organizational Learning Process. Hanover: Now Publishers Inc. Newberry, D., 2008. Organizational Learning, Leadership and Culture: A Study of Program Managers in the Department of Defense. London: ProQuest. Sessa, V. and London, M., 2006. Continuous Learning in Organizations: Individual, Group, And Organizational Perspectives. London: Routledge. Simpson, K., 2013. Embedding Culture Into BCM. March 22, 2013. Continuity Insights. Available at http://www.continuityinsights.com/articles/2013/03/embedding-culture-bcm Schein, E., 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Stellman, J., 1998. Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety. 4th ed. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Walker, R., 2010. Strategic Business Communication: For Leaders. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Read More