 |
Culture refers to the stable set of frameworks, ideas, symbols, meanings, experiences, habits, and conditions that compel members of a durable group to think and act as they do. Organizational culture is complex, interwoven, and very resistant to change in the short run, or even over a substantial period of time. It is generally created in the early years of an organization's history. It tends to change slowly, and acquires stability partially because its elements are reinforced both by external realities and internal actions, and partially because the culture, which provides predictability, continues to be a good fit for the organization and its members. Organizations are very reluctant to give up the network of meanings and the ways of thinking and working that have been important for the survival and prosperity of their members and the organization itself.
The notion of a boundary culture
Directed, planned culture change is usually impractical. Attempts to change an exiting culture through executive fiat or through the use of social engineering techniques usually have only shallow or temporary consequences. Members of the organization necessarily remain affected by the traditional, broader culture and its assumptions, behaviors, and ways of understanding the world--regardless of what executives and managers may say or demand. Just as calls for "tolerance" in a nation generally have little effect on the deeply held tribal commitments and attitudes of their citizens, so calls for cooperation with a complex alliance partner are often responded to cynically, and go unheeded by members of the organizations. Thus when two established cultures try to work side by side as a system to reach common goals, misunderstanding and "cultural traps" are common. One part of the system requires people to think, talk, and act in one way, and the other requires them to do things that directly contradict the first.
GLS can help establish a viable boundary culture that guides behavior between two or more interdependent but different organizations.
If broad culture change is unlikely to be effective, what can we do?
Nations that trade with one another and share a national boundary line often develop a somewhat different culture near their boundary. For example, the Alsace-Lorraine region of Europe is, in some respects, neither strictly French nor strictly German, and has developed some unique characteristics. Indeed, the interchange between cultural groups at their borders has often produced useful creative tension and broadened meaning, and has supported and generated much invention.
So it might be with different organizations trying to build a durable relationship. These groups are interdependent, and must "live together" over a long period--but they will never merge into one organization. They can, however, explicitly create a boundary culture that remains aware of and respectful of the "home" culture of each group, and makes appropriate accommodations to the needs of both where they must work together. We believe that this must be accomplished explicitly, and cannot be left to chance or to a naturally occurring evolutionary process.
The boundary culture is a set of explicit and implicit rules governing the actions of members while they are in the boundary region (e.g. when they are dealing with the interdependent tasks of their joint work, or with people upon whom they are dependent for accomplishing those tasks. "When in Rome, we do what the Romans do." Thus, for example, the rules for making decisions can be different in the boundary culture: all members recognize that certain decisions must be made by non-members (such as senior executives that represent the dominant culture), while certain other ones may be made internally by working teams, and without external interference.
|
|
|