1. RBM learning seminar VAC Gent, Belgium 26th-27th January 2015
Changing the culture of NCA using the Hofstede’s organizational culture approach
RBM learning seminar
VAC Gent, Belgium
26th-27th January 2015

2. Progress markers (tick if relevant)1
Staff ask for information in order to be engaged in the journey of change towards an RBM organisation 2
Staff ask to participate in RBM-related trainings and similar opportunities that cover personal needs for skills development to improve professional competences (e.g. management and leadership) 3
Management (Heads of Unit) communicate about results from projects 4
Staff give more feedback and coach each other on how to improve their work in terms of RBM 5
Units meet with each other on a regular basis to coordinate and discuss improvement in terms of RBM 6
Staff present concrete ideas to be more result oriented 7
Staff apply practices and experiences gathered from each other in daily work 8
Staff coach promoters on results orientation 9
Staff use relevant sources of information to learn about the needs of constituents/citizens 10
Staff seek feedback from their colleagues and the outside world about what they are doing, learn from it and use it 11
Staff set up working groups with other external actors to remove barriers to results 12
Staff discuss and assess results with promoters and the citizens they serve alongside controls 13
Staff facilitate active ownership with relevant partners 14
Management encourages staff to critically assess the ways of working 15
Staff anticipate the consequences of decisions
Not directly, but organizational culture enables/disables progress in these markers.

3. Country and Organisation
Author / organisation / contact details: Vladimír Kváča, Ministry of Regional Development, Country / region: Czech Republic

4. DEVELOPMENTAL / SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY
CULTURAL
ANTROPOLOGY
DEVELOPMENTAL / SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
SOCIOLOGY
Control engineering
(quality)
Negative feed-back: dampening divergence of behaviour from a goal
Positive feed-back: amplifying deviation from a goal (for better or worse)
The many relations between the part of a system give rise to interacting positive and negative feed-back loops leading to unpredictabilty
Requisite variety
SYSTEMS
THINKING
APPROACH
Biology/ ecology
System and sub-systems in a hierarchy
Interactions give rise to emergent properties
Interactions define boundaries with wider systems
Wider systems represent the environment
Systems must develop productive relations with their environment
Resilience of systems
Complexity theory
Attractors
Non-linearity
Self-organisation
Emergence
Path dependency
Behavioral economics
Institutional/ evolutionary economics
Routines (collective), habits (individual), rules norms
Power
Biases
RBM
 »plus »
ECON-OMICS

5. Why culture?
There three things that influence our „mental software“ – the way we think and behave
1. Being homo sapiens
Universal, shared by all people
Inherited via DNA
2. Culture
Shared within a social group of people
Learned via socialization
3. Personality
Individual for each person
Partly inherited, partly learned

6. The function of organizational culture:
The way in which the members
of an organization relate to:
Each other
Their work
The outside world
in comparison to other organizations.

7. Organizational culture:
There are no good or bad cultures. Cultures are functional or dysfunctional depending on who we want/need to be = what is our strategy.
Culture only exists by comparison. Culture has no meaning by itself.
Organizational culture can be changed (to be in line with the strategy)

8. Assessment of organizational culture
To answer the question if current organizational culture fits the strategy, you need a tool for organizational culture diagnosis.
As culture exists only by comparison, you need to use culture model that has also available database of organizations‘ scores for comparison.
There are several models on the market, e.g.:
The Hofstede Model of Organizational Culture
Daniel Denison’s model
Fons Trompenaars‘ model

9. The Hofstede Model consists of 8 dimensions
D1: Means versus goal oriented
We identify with the “how” versus we identify with the “what” (Health risks versus effectiveness)
D2: Internally versus externally driven
We know what is best for the client or we don’t need to care about them versus we do whatever the client wants
D3: Loose versus tight work control
(Innovation and/or unpredictability versus efficiency/planning)
D4: Local versus professional
We identify with our direct boss and/or with our work group versus we identify with our profession and/or with the content of our work (Work life is a dangerous affair versus we love to find out what is happening in the rest of the world)

10. D7: Degree of leadership acceptance
D5: Open versus closed systems
Newcomers are welcome versus they first have to proof themselves
D6: Employee versus work oriented
Management takes co-responsibility for the welfare of their people versus management believes that if they don’t put their people under pressure nothing will happen
D7: Degree of leadership acceptance
from low to high
D8: Degree to which people identify with their organization
Please note:
- The definitions define the extreme positions
- The combinations of dimensions will define well known topics, e.g. D1 and D2 together define process versus result orientation
And D1 and D5 together define open versus closed communication.

11. Notes to the dimensions
Culture scores of dimensions 1, 3 and 5 tend to differ within organisation (different units can have different culture with regard to this dimensions)
Culture scores dimensions 2, 4, 6 tend to be the same across the whole organization.
Dimensions 7 and 8 are „semi-autonomous“.

12. On-line application to explain the dimensions

13. How the culture change using the Hofstede model works (and what we did)
1. Culture scan (getting the data on current culture)
July 2014
August 2014: VK trained in Hofstede Model
Sep – Nov 2014: Period of instability in our organization. No progress.
2. Discussion with the management, which culture should be optimal for the organization.
December 2014
3. Comparison of actual and optimal scores
4. Identification of priorities for change
To be done (postponed due to illness of key persons).
5. Planning the change
To be done
6. Actions to change the culture

14. 1. Culture scan
Intention to do the culture scan agreed with our deputy minister.
This consists of quite simple data gathering:
survey for the staff (40 minutes); questions like
„Management keeps everybody informed“ vs. „Rumours spread quickly“
„Each day is pretty much the same“ vs. „Each day brings new challenges“
Related to actual situation and „Work paradise“.
and two short surveys for the management aiming to „categorize“ the organization – being public administration, need to keep the secrets etc.

15. 2. Discussion on optimal culture
Deputy minister, two directors (incl. me as facilitator) and HR head of unit, 90 minutes.
Dimensions explained and a discussion followed where we want to be on each specific dimension.

16. D1 Effectiveness Means oriented Goal oriented
Identification with “how”
Monotonous work
Many rules
Promises not kept
Goal oriented
Identification with “what”
Challenging work
Inspiring boss
Supportive 20 60 80
100

17. D2 Customer orientation
Internal driven
Procedures first
We do everything well
We know what is best for client
Many rules
External driven
Customer is king
Scope for improvement
Pragmatic
Flexible

18. D3 Control Easy going Strict Informal Disciplined Innovative
Work unpredictable
Few work standards
Strict
Disciplined
Efficient and punctual
Serious
Cost conscious 20 60
100

19. D4 Focus Local Professional Here and now Identification with direct
boss and/or own unit
Internal directed
Do as we do
Professional
Also long term perspective
Identification with professions
and/or content job
External directed
Critical
100

20. D5 Approachability Open system Closed system
One feels immediately at home
Open door policy
We say what we think
Closed system
It takes a long time before feeling home
The grapevine is all important
In difficult situations people make themselves small

21. D6 Management philosophy
Employee oriented
The employer takes co-
responsibility for our welfare
Our personal problems are
taken into account
It is not easy to be fired
Work oriented
Our welfare is our own
business
We are put under pressure to
finish our tasks
Individuals take most
important decisions

23. D7 Acceptance of leaderchip style

24. D8 Acceptance of leaderchip style

25. 3. Comparison optimal vs. actual

26. Work paradise

27. Some main conclusions
Strengths are our profesionalism, ability to learn and identification with the organisation.
There is a high danger of burn-out, some people are stretched over their limits
We are „functional bureaucracy“
We don‘t care enough about our „customers“.

28. Change
When changing culture, you can focus only one or two dimensions at once.
In our case this for sure will be D6 (employee vs. work oriented), maybe in combination with D1 (means vs. goals) or D5 (open vs. close).

29. Change
Changing people’s ways in organisation on purpose can be realised in two ways:
• Directly by tell and sell
• Indirectly by changing people’s work environment to such a degree that they would be stupid not to adjust their behaviour
Readiness for change is also dependent on culture, it is connected to feelings of trust and security.
In our case the perceived insecurity can make the change more difficult.

30. The link between national and organizational culture
The Hofstede Model
Symbols
While national culture has very slow dynamics (small changes between generationsl), the organizational culture can be intentionally changed in 1-4 years.
Heroes
Rituals
Values
Practices
National Culture
6-Dimensional Model

31. Why to care about your (organizational) culture
By understanding your culture, you can predict what is more likely to work in your organizations and where you can expect problems.
You should be careful when trying to implement „best practices“ from other organizations (or even countries) – shouldn‘t you change your culture first?

32. Benefits of the practice so far
First ever discussion about something „really strategic” with top management.
Framework to discuss openly where we are, what we want.
Seen as a tool that promises that could help us with a burning issue of burn-out problem.

33. Disappointments/disadvantages
No silver bullet solution, changing the culture requires time and serious involvement of senior management.
Hofstede Model of Organizational Culture is commercial product, cannot be used without participation of certified expert as facilitator.
Just being trained and certified may not be enough due to lack of experience.

34. Pitfalls to avoid
Danger of creating „hope“ and then failing to act.
Culture check can be done without much awareness of the staff, but once you communicate the results, the management must be sure it will devote sufficient resources for culture change. Otherwise risk of deeper dissapointment.

35. Crucial steps to take
Need for support from the top-level management.
Need for expert knowledge.
Need for sufficient time to discuss.

36. As based on proved product, this practice is easy to transfer.
Transferability
It is not at all possible to adapt the practice at all
Some elements of the practice can be adapted
A substantial amount of the practice can be adapted
The practice requires little adaptation: most elements can be integrated directly
The practice can be fully integrated without adaptation  X
As based on proved product, this practice is easy to transfer.
It may have significant synergy with other practices, eg. with Systems thinking/Vanguard Method.

37. How the culture change using the Hofstede model works
Culture scan (getting the data on current culture)
Discussion with the management, which culture should be optimal for the organization.
Comparison of actual and optimal scores
Identification of priorities for change
Planning the change
Actions to change the culture