Training Needs Analysis

Training Needs Analysis Abstract/Introduction: This paper focuses on "Strategic Organizational Culture Management and Its Training Needs" as a tool to preserve a company's competitiveness in a given market. While there seems to be unanimity that "Strategic Organizational Culture" has become a necessary asset of the modern company, there is the question of whether such culture can be managed and whether such management can be trained. The purpose of the paper is to reflect the current state of art in the area by reviewing both academic and professional (practical) orientations.

By discussing the implications of that research it aims to provide conclusion drawn from the available research by showing that "Strategic Organizational Culture Management" is an aspect of managerial leadership that is accessible to and in need of ongoing training. Main Part: A strategic plan maps out the direction a company will follow to achieve an organizational vision or goal. Strategic plan development requires analysis of the internal and external environments in which a company operates and identification of potential opportunities to gain or strengthen a competitive advantage.

Internal organization considerations for the development of a strategic plan include workforce strengths and weaknesses, financial considerations and organizational culture. There is unanimity in academic and professional literature that organizational culture plays a large role in a company's ability to adapt and thrive under changing conditions. Deal and Kennedy (1982) argue that culture is one of the most important factors accounting for success or failure in organizations (see Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 2). A good, well-aligned culture can propel it to success.

However, the wrong culture will stifle its ability to adapt to a fast-changing world (see Chapter 15: Organizational Culture ibid). For example, a company with a tall organizational structure, that is with many layers of management and complex reporting relationships -- may find that its structure impedes a strategic goal to improve customer service survey scores, since front-line employees must have management approval for all remedial actions (see INGRAM, p. 1). Unfortunately, very often companies try to be everything to everybody.

They fail to identify and sustain their competitive advantage by neglecting their company's culture. They waste time and money in markets that may never give them a worthwhile return on investment (Denison, May 15, 2009, p. 1). So, the question is: How do we attempt to understand corporate culture? And what steps can we take to create a strong corporate culture that will best support an organization's activities (see Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 2).

Like art, people not think we know a lot about it, but they recognize a company's culture when they see it. People see evidence of it every day in the willingness of people to work together on a deadline, the empowerment one can sense in a front-line employee and the dogged commitment of sales people to provide the best overall solution to customers. Even the design and layout of company offices can provide insights into what an organization really values.

Signs of unhealthy culture also abound and are manifest in an "It's not my job" mentality, poor customer service and ultimately, deteriorating financial performance. The link between culture and performance is discernable and proven. Getting to the bottom of what drives your individual organization is not only a "nice to do" to promote a harmonious work environment but absolutely necessary in preserving and growing corporate profitability (Denison, May 15, 2009, p. 1). For a long time, business leaders innately knew what academics later came to acknowledge and name.

Corporate culture was described back in 1966 by McKinsey & Company managing director, Marvin Bower, as "the way we do things around here." Again, like many things, often the first impression is the most powerful and accurate. The natural simplicity and resonance of the phrase strikes a chord with anyone who has been in the middle of a culture change. A more scientific definition by one of the leaders in this field, Edgar H.

Schein, suggested that culture is: & #8230;a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Denison, May 15, 2009, p. 1). Culture has long been on the agenda of management theorists.

Culture change must mean changing the corporate ethos, the images and values that inform action and this new way of understanding organizational life must be brought into the management process. There are a number of central aspects of culture: There is an evaluative element involving social expectations and standards; the values and beliefs that people hold central and that bind organizational groups. Culture is also a set of more material elements or artefacts.

These are the signs and symbols that the organization is recognized by but they are also the events, behaviors and people that embody culture. The medium of culture is social interaction, the web of communications that constitute a community. Here a shared language is particularly important in expressing and signifying a distinctive organizational culture (CHAPTER 15: Organizational Culture, p. 2) According to Geert Hofstede "Culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from another." He also later stated that culture entails mental programming ..

patterns of thinking and feeling and potential acting. A key term in these definitions is the word "programming'." Other authors suggest that culture is not something that is easily acquired. It is a slow process of growing into a society. It includes: learning values (dominant beliefs and attitudes), partaking of rituals (collective activities), modeling against heroes (role models), and understanding symbols (myths, legends, dress, jargon, etc.) (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 1). Hofstede's research effort commencing in 1980 is the most celebrated of its kind.

The study comprised 116,000 questionnaires, from which over 60,000 people responded from over 50 countries. Hofstede worked with IBM (at the time identified as Hermes) staff over the years 1967 to 1978 to obtain this research. From the data he obtained he provided a factor analysis of 32 questions in 40 countries. From this he identified four bipolar dimensions (Power Distance; Individualism/Collectivism; Uncertainty Avoidance; Masculinity/Feminity), which became the basis of his characterizations of culture for each country.

A subsequent study conducted by Hofstede and Bond introduced a fifth element 'Confucian Dynamism' or 'Long/Short-Term Orientation', which was an attempt to fit the uncertainty avoidance dimension into the Asian culture. Hofstede's research has had a remarkable effect on academics and practitioners alike. Hofstede's model has been instrumental in the implementation of many business systems, including: compensation practices; budget control practices; entrepreneurial behavior; training design; conflict resolution; workgroup dynamics and performance; innovation; leadership styles; management control systems; participative management (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 1).

A healthy corporate culture can positively influence a company. Corporate culture is heavily influenced by external and internal factors such as the industry in which the company operates, its geographic location, events that have occurred during its history, the personalities of its employees, and their patterns of interaction.

Some of the formal definitions offered include "a cognitive framework consisting of attitudes, values, behavioral norms, and expectations," "the collective thoughts, habits, attitudes, feelings, and patterns of behavior," and "the pattern of arrangement, material or behavior which has been adopted by a society (corporation, group, or team) as the accepted way of solving problems" (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references). In more useful terms, a positive corporate culture typically encompasses several key elements.

It is fostered not merely by a mission statement, but by a clear corporate vision, which is a mental picture of the company's desired future (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references). Corporate visions are most effective when clearly communicated by top organizational leaders who exhibit strong values and have dynamic, charismatic personalities (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references). In addition positive corporate culture is supported by corporate values that are consistent with the purpose of the company and aligned with the personal values of organizational members (Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p.

2 with references.). Furthermore organizations with positive corporate culture highly value employees at all levels of the organization (they are often referred to as "associates" or "team members"), and there is extensive employee interaction both within and across functional departments (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references). Another mark of organizations with positive corporate cultures is their ability to adapt and adjust quickly in response to external conditions and is consistent, treating all employees equally and fairly (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references).

Corporate culture is also perpetuated in some way, perhaps through tangible symbols, slogans, stories, or ceremonies that highlight corporate values (see Dartey-Baah, 7 March 2011, p. 2 with references). Organizational culture is apparently unifying and this strongly appeals to management's concern with projecting an image of the organization as a community of interests.

Perhaps most importantly culture penetrates to the essence of an organization -- it almost analogous with the concept of personality in relation to the individual and this acute sense of what an organization is -- its mission, core values -- seems to have become a necessary asset of the modern company (Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 4). If real change is to occur in organizations rather than cosmetic or short -- lived change, it has to happen at the cultural level (Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 3).

Martin Hahn (21 April 2007) identifies three features that determine a culture's strength. The first is thickness of culture, measured by the number of important shared assumptions. Thick cultures have many such assumptions, thin cultures few. The second dimension is extent of sharing. In strong cultures, layers and layers of beliefs are shared. Clarity of ordering is the third determinant of cultural strength. In their classic 1982 book, "Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life," Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy proposed one of the first models of organizational culture.

When the book was published, it had many supporters, although there were also many who felt the idea of corporate culture would be just a passing fad. Now that we are in the 21rd century, the notion of corporate culture is widely accepted as important a business concept as financial control and employee satisfaction. In their work on the subject of culture, Deal and Kennedy suggested that the basis of corporate culture was an interlocking set of six cultural elements (see Deal and Kennedy's Cultural Model, 5 May 2010, p.

1): History, values and beliefs, rituals and ceremonies, stories, and heroic figures. By examining these cultural elements across a variety of organizations, Deal and Kennedy identified furthermore two marketplace factors that they felt influenced cultural patterns and practices. These were: The degree of risk associated with a company's key activities and the speed at which companies learn whether their actions and strategies are successful. Deal and Kennedy presented these factors as four culture types (see Deal and Kennedy's Cultural Model, p.

2) that exemplify the strength and weaknesses of corporate culture: Tough-Guy, Macho: This culture contains a world of individualists who enjoy risk and who get quick feedback on their decisions. This is an all-or-nothing culture where successful employees are the ones who enjoy excitement and work very hard to be stars. The entertainment industry, sports teams and advertising are great examples of this cultural type. Teamwork is not highly valued in this culture, and it's a difficult environment for people who blossom slowly.

This leads to higher turnover, which impedes efforts to build a cohesive culture. Thus, individualism continues to prevail. Work Hard/Play Hard: This culture is the world of sales (among others). Employees themselves take few risks; however, the feedback on how well they are performing is almost immediate. Employees in this culture have to maintain high levels of energy and stay upbeat. Heroes in such cultures are high volume salespeople. Interestingly, this culture recognizes that one person alone cannot make the company.

They know it is a team effort and everyone is driven to excel. Contests among employees are common here, as they drive everyone to reach new heights. Bet-Your-Company: Here, the culture is one in which decisions are high risk but employees may wait years before they know whether their actions actually paid off. Pharmaceutical companies are an obvious example of this culture, as are oil and gas companies, architectural firms and organizations in other large, capital-intensive industries.

Because the need to make the right decision is so great, the cultural elements evolve such that values are long-term focused and there is a collective belief in the need to plan, prepare and perform due diligence at all stages of decision making. Process: In this culture, feedback is slow, and the risks are low. Large retailers, banks, insurance companies and government organizations are typically in this group.

No single transaction has much impact on the organization's success and it takes years to find out whether a decision was good or bad. Because of the lack of immediate feedback, employees find it very difficult to measure what they do so they focus instead on how they do things. Technical excellence is often valued here and employees will pay attention to getting the process and the details right without necessarily measuring the actual outcome.

The revealing view in the professional world is that change of organizational culture is a tough issue because organizational culture grows over time by interaction between the participants in the organization and people are comfortable with the current organizational culture. Nevertheless organizational culture change is possible when people in an organization realize and recognize that their current culture needs to transform to support the company's success (see Susan M. Heathfield (2011) and Mary Duffy (2000). Culture change depends on behavior change.

Members of the organization must clearly understand what is expected of them, and must know how to actually do the new behaviors, once they have been defined. Training can be very useful in both communicating and teaching new behaviors. Executives in the organization must support the cultural change, and in ways beyond verbal support. They must show behavioral support for the cultural change. Executives must lead the change by changing their own behaviors.

It is extremely important for executives to consistently support the change which is an aspect of leadership that is accessible to managerial training. Academics tend to say that organizational change cannot be managed and thus not be trained (see Chapter 15: Organizational Change, pp. 2ff. with references). Corporate culture would be a kind of image for the company which top management would like to project and that the image of the organization differs according to where one views it.

Even in companies with strong cultures the social distance between senior management and shop floor reality could be very wide. Cultures would be hardly planned or predictable; they are the natural products of social interaction and evolve and emerge over time (Chapter 15: Organizational Culture ibid with references). Remarks like this tend to support the widespread notion in academia that corporate culture is a given in a company that is not manageable and therefore management qualities in that special field are not trainable.

Nevertheless, there are also voices in the academic and professional world suggesting that corporate culture is an asset that can be managed and that management in this special issue can be trained. The most widely used organizational culture framework is that of Edgar H.

Schein, who adopts the functionalist view and described culture as a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Organizational culture theory, 18 November 2010, p. 1 with references). As Edgar H.

Schein noted: "…the only thing of real importance that managers do is to create and manage culture" (see Corporate Culture in Global Business, p. 1 with references). Schein believed that managers try to influence corporate culture through: What leaders pay attention to, measure and control on a regular basis; How leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises; How leaders allocate resources; Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching; How leaders allocate rewards and status; How leaders recruit, select, promote, and excommunicate.

A reasoned and thoughtful approach to this vital subject is critical to the success of the enterprise. There seems to be no cultural type that is better than the other, because the types emerge as a result of circumstances (see Deal and Kennedy's Cultural Model, p. 2). Andrew M. Pettigrew is another representative of the world of academia who believes that cultures can be shaped to suit strategic ends (see Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 4 with reference). Corporate culture has many powerful attractions as a lever for change.

The problem is certainly how to get a hand on the lever. Firstly, cultures can be explicitly created -- one has to be aware of what it takes to change an existing culture. The ability of companies to be culturally innovative is related to leadership and top management must be responsible for building strong cultures. Leaders construct the social reality of the organization; they shape values and attend to the drama and vision of the organization.

Culture is frequently counter-posed to formal rationality -- in this sense culture helps to resolve the dilemma of bureaucracy; formal procedures are necessary for business integrity but they also stifle autonomy and innovation (Chapter 15: Organizational Culture, p. 3). I think that awareness of what it takes to change an existing culture, the ability of companies.