Transcript Document

Organisational sustainability in multicultural
environments through the creation of a
culture of engagement
Dr Rica Viljoen
Rica Viljoen
•
•
•
•
•
•
Doctor in Business Leadership (SBL Unisa)
International Organisational Development specialist and practitioner
focusing on optimising individual, group and organisational behaviour
Focus on creating Engagement in multi-cultural organisations through
Inclusivity
Consulted to and facilitated in various countries e.g. California,
Chicago, Peru, Australia, Spain, Zambia, Mali, Tanzania, Namibia,
Zambia, Ghana
Associated with numerous academic institutions as subject matter
expert e.g. da Vinci Institute, University of Johannesburg, SBL –
UNISA and Village of Leaders – Stellenbosch
Managing Director of Mandala Consulting
Layout of presentation
Organisational sustainability in multicultural environments through
the creation of a culture of engagement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Topic Description
Academic foundation
Engagement
Creating climate of engagement
Unleashing tacit potential in systems
Benchmark of Engagement (BeQ)
Case study: Ghana, Australia
Benefits of Engagement
Methodologies that release Engagement
Further development of BeQ
Conclusions
Questions
Topic Description
In today’s competitive, ever changing world, companies strive harder than
ever to implement strategy in a sustainable manner and to stay recent
in the mind of the global consumer.
The people capacity in the system and the interaction between human
entities lead to the “amount of energy” in a system to perform.
This can lead to a climate of engagement – a system where the tacit
potential of an individual manifest and is applied to organisational tasks
to the benefit of the individual, the group and the organisation.
.
Other forms of energy is “apathetic” or “disconnected” with obvious human
potential losses.
Engagement lead to organisational benefits such as customer centricity,
productivity, safe behaviour, low turnover and low absenteeism.
Academic Foundation
Introduction
Data
Gathering
1.1 Existing
Theory
Data analysis
through
Qualitative
Methodologies
2.1 Grounded
Theory
Research
Design
1.2 Case
Study
1.3 In depth
interviews
2.2 Post
intervention
investigation
1.4 Focus
groups
2.3 Phenomenology
2.4 Content
Analysis
Inclusivity
Framework
Testing Phase
Research
Questions
Adapted
Inclusivity
Framework
Conclusions and
recommendations
Limitations of
study
Identification of
Future research
Non-negotiable pre-requisites for Engagement
Within the context of the industry and the
country:
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
I
P
The
Individual
The
Team
The
organisation
Assumptions
About
Me
Assumptions
About
We
Assumptions
About
They
Respect,
Regard,
Resilience,
Personal Responsibility
Support,
Leadership,
Diversity,
Accountability
Trust,
Alignment,
Adaptability to change,
Inclusivity,
Ethics
Internationally Benchmarked
•
The BeQ-model reflects the interplay between assumptions and perceptions
alive and well in organisations around constructs that contribute to the
unleashing of individual voices, potential and gifts.
•
As the industry dynamics, the country climate and worldview also influence
these perceptions, they are also explored.
Engagement
> 75%
Involved
60-74%
Apathetic
45-59%
Disconnected
<45%%
Energy is positive, neutral or negative
Engagement
Employee Engagement is defined (Corporate
Leadership Council, 2004:3) as
the “positive emotional connection to an employee’s
work, thus affective, normative and continuance
commitment” and "a heightened emotional
connection that an employee feels for his or her
organisation, that influences him or her to exert
greater discretionary effort to his or her work".
Engagement
Engagement through Inclusivity
“…a radical organizational transformational
methodology which aligns the doing and the being
side of the organization around commonly defined
principles and values, co-created by all.
It is a systemic approach that focuses on underlying
beliefs and assumptions and challenges patterns in
the individual, group and organisational psyche, to
spend energy and engage in a sustainable, inclusive
manner with the purpose to achieve shared
consciousness.”
Engagement
Viljoen (2008) defined a culture of Engagement as
“the way in which adult members of a system interact
around the Doing and the Being to unleash potential.
Engagement is viewed as the output of the energy in
the system to perform”
The level of Engagement is determined by the systemic
result of the interplay between the individual
potential, group potential and organisational potential
in the context of the specific industry or national
culture”.
Engagement
The level of Engagement is determined by the systemic
result of the interplay between the individual
potential, group potential and organisational potential
in the context of the specific industry or national
culture”.
The I-engage define behavioural engagement as
defined by Massey (2008)
A culture of Engagement- energy on all dimensions
EQ Journey
Dialoguing
Storytelling
Group
State Engagement
Trait Engagement
Behavioral Engagement
Leadership
Work attributes
Organisation
Organisational Leadership
Culture of Engagement
Individual
OD
Interventions
Appreciative
Inquiry
World
Cafe
The What
Doing
Engagement /
Commitment
Context:
Industry
South Africa
Africa
Global
Leadership
How individuals change
The
Team
Being
The
Individual
Apathy
Inclusivity
The
Organisation
How groups
change
Disconnect
How organisations change
The way: How we change
Why we change
New world of
work
Essence of Change
New Sciences
Nature of the world
We change differently
Consciousness
On
Diversity
Mandala
Consulting
Level of Engagement
National Cultural
Assumptions
About
Me
The
individual
Assumptions
About
The
We
Team
Level of
engagement
The
Organisation
Assumptions
About
They
and Society Context
Business Benefits of a Culture of Engagement
Level of
engagement
Correlates directly to:
+
-
Productivity
Abseetism
Retention
Turnover
Employee Satisfaction
Apathy
Creativity and Innovation
Number of incidents
Safe Behaviour
Number of Accidents
Exceptional Service
Mistakes
Ability to deal with change
Apathy
Superior Quality
Benefits of Engagement
Inclusivity has benefits on all the different domains:
•
Individual domain:
Personal growth, enhanced EQ, Personal effectiveness
Higher levels of Consciousness
Allowing of differences,
Hope, Pride.
•
Group domain:
Enhanced group dynamics,
Less unconscious group dynamics,
Innovation, Creativity.
•
Organisational domain:
Trust, Conducive climate and growth,
Sense of Belonging, Commitment,
Retention of Talent
•
Societal context:
Community Building, localization of Skill ,
Reputable Employer
Energy to perform
Quote
“We are all connected and operate within living fields of
thought and perception. The world is not fixed but in
constant flux; accordingly, the future is not fixed, and so
can be shaped
Humans possess significant tacit knowledge – we know more
than we can say
The question to be resolved : how to remove the blocks and
tap into that knowledge in order to create the kind of
future we all want?”
David Bohm
EngagementTransformational Process
Optimal people
job fit
OD
interventions
The BEING
Step 1:
Ensure
talent
The DOING
Step 1:
Analysis
Core
purpose
Scenario
planning
Mission
PESTLE
Vision
PORTER
Core
values
The DOING
Step 2:
Planning
Structure
Core
capabilities
External
Value Prop
Strategic architecture
Internal
The articulated and clearly understood
Branding
concept of the desired future state
Leadership
Framework
SWOT
Profit
modeling
Strategy operationalised
Insight
Leadership
formulates strategy
Engagement
Sustainable
Transformation
Understanding
differences
Alignment,
Shared
understanding
Change
resilience
Renewed
capacity to
perform
The BEING
Step 2:
Inclusion
Balanced Score Card and
Values
Strategic Goals
Strategy translation into
Operational terms
Leadership alignment
Leadership
Drives and implement
strategy
Shared views of
the present
and the future
Values
The BEING
Step 3:
Translation
Group and
Individual BSC
KPA’s
Behaviours
IDP
Targets
The DOING
and BEING
Final Step:
Cementing
Strategic
Initiatives
Operational
goals
Measures
The DOING
Step 3:
Translation
Damang Case study
Comparative slide - year 2 versus year 1
Year 1
73
77
76 78
75
67
76
Year 2
82
80
74
69
64 63
62
69
66
81
75
74
71
68
65
63
60
54
66
68
67
63
58
73
68
SANKOFA
Ghana Case Study
Sense of Urgency
High Alignment
Focus of BeQ
Supervisor ‘s
Motivation and
Leadership
High Risk Taking
Safety Focus
Mpira mo ho
Low
Belonging
Low
Acknowledgement
Inconsistent
Perf management
Pride
Paralyzed
Low Confidence
Commitment
Have voice
Decreased
Performance
Language
Diversity
Focus of BeQ
Evident Enablers
Low Wellbeing
Capability
Outcome Compromisers
Unwillingness to
Engage
Manifested Dynamic
Ghana: Drivers of I_Engage
Different Value Systems Engage Differently
I-Engage formula: Ghana
I_ENGAGEMENT =
.16*SUPERVISOR_CAPABILITY + .123*TRUST+ .1055EXPAT_LOCAL
I-Engagement Quotient different for each different environment
I-Engage formula: Australia
I_ENGAGE =
.125*ENABLED + .103*INCLUSION+ .153*CORPOR_CITIZEN +.089*SUPPORT+
.078*DIVERSITY + 1.405
I-Engagement Quotient different for each different environment
I-Engage formula: South Africa
I_ENGAGE =
.12*DIRECT LINE MANAGER_CAPABILITY + .1123*RESPECT+
.1032DIVERSITY_ACCEPTANCE +.800FEELING_REWARDED
I-Engagement Quotient different for each different environment
Hofstede National Cultural Dynamics
National Culture Dynamic
Ghana: Tarkwa
Power Distance
Directness is disrespectful
84.0
70.5
Risk taking versus Risk avoidance
Rule following versus Rule avoidance
Community versus Individualism
Relationships versus Production
16.0
29.5
76.0
63.0
24.0
37.0
81.4
79.0
18.6
21.0
Hofstede National Cultural Dynamics
Benchmark of Engagement
Australia National Cultural Dynamics
Power difference
70.00
Being direct and too the point are respectful
30.00
75.45
Risk Taking
24.55
45.45
54.55
Rule following
96.36
Collectivism
3.64
62.73
Relationships versus performance
37.27
57.27
0%
10%
20%
30%
42.73
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Conclusion
Mind the gap!!!!
Meta-insights gained on Engagement
•
The DOING and BEING are equally important and should be dealt with as such.
•
Building a culture of Engagement is a Radical Transformational Strategy.
•
Hope is created during this strategy – this energy, if not channeled can have
negative implications.
•
Transformational leadership is needed to sponsor the process.
•
Leadership strength and ethics on all organizational levels are critical.
•
Emotional intelligence development critical in order to deal with mature
system dynamics.
•
Each action has a reaction – creating an inclusive system will lead to exclusion
of other systems.
Quote
“It’s not that we need to form new organisations. It’s
simply that we have to awaken to new ways of thinking.
I believe it makes no sense to spend a lot of time
attacking the current realities. It is time to create the new
models that have in them the complexity that makes the
older systems obsolete. And to the extent that we can do
that, and do that quickly, I think we can provide what
will be necessary for a major breakthrough for the
future.”
~ Dr. Don Beck
Questions
?
References
Agarwala, T. 2003, ‘Innovative human resource practices and organisational
commitment: An empirical investigation’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 175-197.
Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. 1990, ‘The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organisation’, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. 1986, ‘Dual commitment and labour- management
relationship climates‘, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 31-50.
Angle, H.L. & Perry, J.L. 1983, ‘Organisational commitment: Individual and
organisational influences‘, Work and Occupations, vol. 10, no.2, pp. 123-146.
Baruch, Y. & Winkelmann-Gleed, A. 2002, ‘Multiple commitments: A conceptual
framework and empirical investigation on a Community Health Service Trust‘,
British Journal of Management, vol. 13, pp. 337-357.
Benson, J. 1998, ‘Dual commitment: Contract workers in Australian manufacturing
enterprises’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 355-375.
Bishop, J.W. Dow Scott, K. & Burroughs, S.M. 2000, ‘Support, commitment, and
employee outcomes in a team environment’, Journal of Management, vol. 26, no.
6, pp. 1113-1132.
Blau, P.M. 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, New York.
References
Chang, K. & Chelladurai, P. 2003, ‘Comparison of Part-time workers and Full-time
workers: Commitment and citizenship behaviours in Korean sport organisations’,
Journal of Sport Management, vol. 17, pp. 394-416.
Crabtree, S. 2005, ‘Engagement keeps the doctor away‘, Gallup Management
Journal, January 13, pp. 1-4.
Deery, S.J. & Iverson, R.D. 1998, ‘Antecedents and consequences of dual and
unilateral commitment: A longitudinal study‘, The University of Melbourne,
Department of Management working paper number 1, January 1998.
Echols, M.E. 2005, ‘Engaging employees to impact performance‘ Chief Learning
Officer, February, pp. 44-48.
Eisenberger, R. Fasolo, P & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990, ‘Perceived organisational
support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation‘, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 51-59.
Eisenberger, R. Huntington. R. Hutchinson, S. & Sowa, D. 1986, ‘Perceived
organisational support‘, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 500-507.
Gouldner, A.W. 1960, ‘The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, vol.
25, no. 2, pp. 165-178.
Greenfield. W.M. 2004, ‘Decision making and employee engagement‘, Employee
Relations Today‘, Summer, pp. 13-24.
Gubman, E. 2004, ‘From engagement to passion for work: The search for the
missing person‘, Human Research Planning, pp. 42-46.
References
Harter, J.K. Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. 2002, ‘Business- unit- level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta analysis‘, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268-279.
Kahn, W.A. 1990, ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work‘, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692724.
Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. 2002, ‘Employee engagement and manager selfefficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development‘, Journal of
Management Development, vol. 21, 5, pp. 376-387.
May, D.R. Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. 2004, ‘The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at
work’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, PP. 11-37.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. 2008. ‘The meaning of employee engagement’ ,
Industrial and Organisational Psychology, vol, 1, pp 3-30.
McDade, S. & McKenzie, A. 2002, ‘Knowledge workers in the engagement
equation’, Strategic HR Review, vol. 1, 4, pp. 34-37.
Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. 1991, ‘A three component conceptualisation of
organisational commitment’, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 1, pp.
61-89.
References
Mowday, R.T. Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. 1979, ‘The measurement of
organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 14, pp. 224-247.
Mueller, C.W. Wallace, J.E. & Price, J.L. 1992, ‘Employee commitment: Resolving
some issues‘, Work and Occupations, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 211-236.
Porter, L.W. Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. & Boulian, P.V. 1974, ‘Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 603-609.
Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. 1986, Handbook of organizational measurement,
Pitman Publishing, INC, Massachusetts.
Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. 1981, ‘A causal model of turnover for nurses‘, Academy
of Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 543-565.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. 2004, ‘The drivers of employee
engagement‘, Institute of Employment Studies, Report 405.
Viljoen, R.C. 2008, ‘Sustainable organisational transformation through
inclusivity’, DBL dissertation. Available online www://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETDdb/theses/available/etd-02192009-090759/unrestricted/00thesis.pdf