Signature Assignment: Create Your Own Leadership Video
OLB 7008, Assignment 8
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Rosalind Gaines
16 June 2019
As an organization, we (the Christian and Missionary Alliance) iare a global not-for-profit organization which operates in 81 countries (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). While our organization is overseen by an elected board known as the Board of Directors, this board is chaired by an elected President (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). As your newly elected President, I am excited about getting into my new responsibilities, which include not only leadership of the National Office but also of staff and offices around the globe (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018).
China is one country in which the Christian & Missionary Alliance operates. It is well documented that China is one of the most difficult countries for Christian organizations to operate in and conduct business. Therefore, we are constantly forced to evaluate and re-evaluate business practices and structure in order to efficiently and effectively in a changing environment. As your newly elected executive leader, I want to share with you today how exactly the Christian & Missionary Alliance plans to operate in China and provide executive guidance on implementing and communicating organizational change in this environment.
Implementing Change Domestically and Abroad
While organizational change has been recognized as an imperative, many various models exist for designing how change can be effectively implemented in organizations (Gobble, 2015). However, certain elements undergird all change models which must be considered during seasons of change. For example, Gobble (2015) noted that all change should be designed so that the energy poured into change efforts matches the strategic output and creates value for the organization. Therefore, we must consider which design best aligns with their desired output and creates desired value. In most change design models, existing organizational charts – which map structure, processes, relationships – must be examined and considered as possible barriers to desired change.
Gobble (2015) highlights the shortfalls of organizational charts in relation to change initiatives. Organizational charts do not assume change; in fact, they imply an unchanging system which is designed to repeat the same process and produce the same outcome. Our new change initiatives will likely require a re-structuring or re-aligning of the organizational chart to the new strategy or vision. In fact, Gobble (2015) recommends the adoption of a structural diagram map in place of the traditional organizational chart. She highlighted that structural diagram maps are inherently more likely to inhibit innovation as they are built upon what functions must be performed and not on who or what is responsible for different functions (Gobble, 2015). With these elements and assumptions understood, several different change design models exist which address these organizational issues. I have discussed each of the with the Board of Directors and want you to know was discussed and, ultimately, decided.
Two different approaches to designing change exist in current models: a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach (Senior, 1997). Within both systems, however, research has highlighted the importance of certain elements being present: organizational values and culture. Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) conducted a study in which they discovered that successful change often began with identifying values and extended these values into organizational culture. This conclusion is corroborated by McAleese and Hargie (2004) who noted that executive leaders must genuinely share and embody the cultural values they are encouraging employees to inject into organizational culture if they are to see change initiatives succeed. These findings are applicable to both top-down and bottom-up approaches to designing change and must be embraced by leadership across all organizational levels.
Another model we discussed for designing organizational change is the Star Model (Gobble, 2015). This model maps organizational interactions between five factors: strategy, policies, organizational processes, and human resource functions. This Star Model for change is generally a top-down approach to designing organizational change. A different model for designing organizational change discussed by Gobble (2015) is provided by the Bridgespan Group. This model considers organizational change from four elements and their interaction with organizational culture. These four elements are: leadership, decision-making processes, people, and systems. Like the Star model, this model for designing change by the Bridgespan Group is generally a top-down approach to designing organizational change.
A different approach to designing organizational change is what Gobble (2015) refers to as a Participatory Design. Participatory design is a bottom-up approach to designing organizational change. Within the framework of a participatory design to change, members of the organization across all levels are invited and encouraged to help shape and structure their own work environment and organizational structure. This more relational approach to organizational change is elsewhere referred to as a soft systems model approach to designing organizational change (Senior, 1997). In their study, Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) discovered that this soft systems model approach to change is often highly successful due to the soft systems model approach to and use of communication, relationships, and participation across all levels of the organization.
Values and Ethics in Change
When considering organizational changes and which model is best suited for designing organizational change in a given operating environment, I know that we must consider cultural values and ethical systems in the countries in which they operate. As value systems and ethical frameworks are different in various cultures, we must build this understanding into our change designs and the selection of organizational communication and change.
A values-based approach to leadership has been discovered to influence organizational and cultural change. Research proves this true not only when operating in a single culture but, importantly for us in the Christian & Missionary Alliance, across multiple cultures as well. What we are now putting in place are some agreed upon barometers for gauging how your values-based leadership is impacting both the organization as well as the environments in which we operates.
Pertinent to this decision is the research of Werhane (2014) who concluded that even though certain operating environments are unethical, operating ethically in an unethical environment can produce good, ethical results. In other words, values-based ethical leadership can have a positive effect on the surrounding culture even when that culture is generally unethical. Additionally, and of equal importance, is a study undertaken by Alas (2006). The research of Alas (2006) demonstrated that, although there are various cultural conceptions of ethics, certain cross-cultural values do exist. We are, therefore, striving to exercise prudence by nesting our corporate goals within these global values. What might these barometers look like in the real world?
Such barometers should include a reduction in the frequency of certain crimes in and around areas where our people operate. One specific example from research comes from (Cateora, Gilly, & Graham, 2011) who noted that bribery is common and accepted in many cultures. In fact, it was specifically concluded that global organizations are at a greater risk of bribery because of their cross-cultural operations. It is important to note the research of Lestrange (2013) who concluded that a strong ethical reputation is itself a deterrent for bribery, even in areas where bribery is common. This can serve as one barometer of whether a values-based approach to ethical leadership is positively impacting the area of operations. An additional barometer we are implementing is the degree to which we successfully retain and attract employees with similar value sets. If such retention is occurring, then such a values-based approach to leadership is resulting in positive cultural change.
More Cultural Differences in Change Management
Our most important and pertinent consideration as a denomination is the element of simultaneous operation in numerous cultures. Not only do different cultures observe differing business practices, but research has demonstrated that cultures respond very differently to the same scenario and circumstances Lestrange (2013). Lestrange (2013) gave, as an example, organizations and their treatment of formal business practices and structures. While in some cultures, formal business practices and structures and normal and widely accepted, in other cultures the same formalized structure would be treated with suspicion and contempt. In fact, Lestrange (2013) specifically highlighted the issue of bribery, concluding that in certain cultures bribery is more frequent when formalized practices and structures are imposed. Consequently, leadership and management in the new millennium requires leaders to operate across multiple cultures and develop organizational targets which take unique cultural elements into consideration (Neera, et al, 2010). In other words, while certain values can sustain across cultures, practices cannot. Global organizations, like ours, must then consider how these values translate into corporate objectives which are not limited by cultural boundaries. There are several examples of such practices to consider.
Sadri (2013) noted that conflict resolution is one of the most important skills that global organizational leaders can develop. This is primarily since different cultures resolve conflict very differently. The failure by executive leadership to take this important cultural distinction into account could have catastrophic results. Sadri (2013) gave the contrast of the Chinese culture of indirectness in conflict resolution and the American culture of directness in conflict resolution. A global leader and organization operating in these two environments needs to build in and allow flexibility for culturally appropriate methods for conflict resolution.
While there are many aspects of executive leadership which present challenges for myself and our Board of Directors, research concludes that these are the best practices and worthy of consideration. So, our first step is to establish organizational values which can be modeled by every individual and measured by the organization. These values are those which transcend cultural boundaries and, thus, can be kept in place across the organization cross-culturally. This not only establishes organizational values but also disseminates decision-making to all levels and across all cultures throughout the organization. Our next step is to translate these values into measurable objectives to ensure that they are influencing culture in a manner consistent with intent. This is accomplished by looking both inside and outside an organization. These objectives should be measurable and attainable, and regularly examined by myself and others in positions of leadership. Finally, I and the other members of our Board must consider how these inflexible values are applied in a flexible manner throughout the organization. Conflict resolution, for example, can be an organizational value, but the implementation of that value needs to be applied at the local level which fits the local context. The application and implementation of these values can and should be left up to the discretion of regional field directors. In observing these principles, which are consistent with the best practices recommended by research, we should experience greater success in our leadership of this cross-cultural, global family.
Examples of Effective & Ineffective Leadership
To help understand this, I’d like to give you both a positive and negative example of leadership in other organizations. Aflac and Amazon, which are both international companies headquartered in the United States, have both been featured in national news for their ethical cultures as organizations. The primary difference is that one company, Aflac, is praised for their positive ethical culture while the other company, Amazon, is criticized for their negative ethical culture. Understanding what constitutes a positive or negative organizational culture is imperative for organizational leaders of all sizes, regardless of their field or sphere of influence. These companies are included in this analysis due to their ethical approach to organizational change, the stark contrast between their approach to organizational management, and a specific instance in China where Amazon failed to properly communicate and oversee organizational changes imposed by organizational leaders on a local factory.
The first major difference in the two organizations is their code of conduct for suppliers. In the case of Aflac, their code of conduct includes corporate values which guide their business practices (Aflac, 2016). Additionally, they provide a toll-free number for employees to call to report any suspected ethical violations by employees and suppliers (Aflac, 2016). In contrast, Amazon has been cited by multiple media sources for their failure to uphold such supplier codes of conduct at a factory in China which produces their Echo products (Chamberlain, 2018). These failures include mistreating employees – overworking and underpaying them – as well as failing to comply with labor laws in the countries in which they operate which, in the case of this supplier is China (Chamberlain, 2018).
Another major difference in these two organizations is their treatment of community service and investing in sustainability initiatives corporately. Aflac continues to be recognized by Ethisphere as one the world’s most ethical companies due to their sustainability initiatives (Ethisphere, 2018). Aflac retains as a corporate sustainability working to eradicate pediatric cancer (Aflac, 2015). Additionally, they work in their local companies with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for individuals and families in need (Aflac, 2015). Conversely, Amazon finds themselves under attack as an organization due to the lack of sustainability initiatives by one of their factories in China. In fact, the management at this factory was specifically cited for not only failing to give back to the community, but for taking from their own employees (Chamberlain, 2018). Foxconn, the company operating the Chinese factory for Amazon was noted for accepting insurance payments from employees without applying them toward their benefits (Chamberlain, 2018). In doing so, Foxconn was deceptively, and unethically, taking from their own employees who were already underpaid and overworked. This is more than a simple failure to invest in corporate sustainability initiatives in this instance, but highlights a deeply unethical view of workplace culture, employees of the company, as well as the community at large.
Conclusion and Recommendations
As your new President, I am working with our Board of Directors to take practical steps to implementing organizational change with our work in China. Research has demonstrated the need to be aware of cultural understanding of ethics and values, as they may be drastically different from other areas. Therefore, we are now conducting an extensive study of cultural and ethical values in certain local areas in which we are seeking to implement organizational change. We plan to accomplish this goal by working alongside other organizations already operating in this environment. Once this research is concluded and analyzed by our leadership, three additional steps will be taken. These steps are only intended to be implemented after this thorough examination of ethics and values-based leadership. Additionally, these are intended to be implemented with the leadership framework of a soft systems model mentioned earlier. This is due to the research of Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) who discovered that this soft systems model approach to change is often highly successful due to the soft systems model approach to and use of communication, relationships, and participation across all levels of the organization. With this soft systems model of leadership, we are also adopting a structural diagram map in place of our traditional organizational chart (Gobble, 2015). This will increase organizational flexibility for future changes.
Within this model and organizational framework, the first step in implementing organizational changes that will result in ongoing improvement is recognizing our existing threats to change. These can be both internal and external, but internal threats can often be both the hardest to identify and the most difficult to overcome. Existing organizational culture, control mechanisms, and infrastructure can all sabotage change and limit change capacity (Edmondson, 2008). Edmondson (2008) called these obstacles “self-sabotaging traps” (p. 63). Lerner (2014) noted that John Kotter, who serves as the director of research for Kotter International, concurred with Edmondson’s findings. Kotter noted that potential hurdles to organizational change include the compensation structure, appraisal process, and even existing management (Lerner, 2014). These can all be used to “reinforce the status quo” (Lerner, 2014, p. 70).
We do not have an extensive history of operating in China. Therefore, less deconstruction of existing threats needs to be accomplished. However, like all organizations, any existing personnel, organizational strategy, lingering culture, and leadership could be a potential internal threat. As Lerner (2014) noted, the danger of status quo reinforcement can sabotage any change initiative. More importantly, however, is that the operating environment of China demands constant change and quick adaption to evolving outside. The demand for internal solidarity, then, is even more important for our operations in China.
Identifying and addressing internal threats is one of the first steps in bringing about positive change and increasing the ability of an organization to change effectively. Researchers have coined the term “change capacity” in identifying the ability of organizations to change effectively (Buono and Kerber, 2010). Lerner (2014) noted that while change is essential for organizations, changing effectively and adapting to change is the battleground for organizational leaders. Change capacity has been defined as “the ability of an organization to change not just once, but as a normal course of events in response to and in anticipation of internal and external shifts, constantly adapting to and anticipating changes in its environment” (Buono and Kerber, 2010, p. 10).
While internal solidarity is the first necessary step in bringing about successful organizational change, increasing the capacity for change is a necessary subsequent step in continuing to change well. This can be accomplished effectively by implementing an incentive program for existing employees as well as the implementation of a stringent hiring program for new employees. The longer we go without being forced to be flexible, the greater will be the difficulty in injecting flexibility. As employees become more flexible, so will the structure and processes of the organization itself. This process will be facilitated by rewarding existing employees based on their adaptation to and encouragement of new cultural standards as well as hiring employees who value flexibility and already possess a more flexible nature.
Buono and Kerber (2010) suggested that communication during times of organizational change should be honest and transparent. This allows for all voices and viewpoints to be expressed, increases organizational learning, and creates opportunities to express a shared purpose and common change language. In addition to these benefits, communication initiates the process of “meaning-making” for employees effected by change (Huevel et al., 2013, p. 15). The process of meaning-making facilitates “integrating challenging/ambiguous events into a framework of personal meaning using value-based reflection” (Park, 2010, p. 265). This allows meaning-making to increase an individual’s willingness to adapt to change (Huevel et al., 2013). Huevel et al. (2013) concluded that the process of meaning-making also translates to successful adaptation for employees when it allows them to reflect on organizational changes and link or align their own personal values to the changes.
Thus, our final action step is to focus on communication with employees. Fitting with the recommendation of Buono and Kerber (2010) is the recommendation that communication from executive leaders to those within the organization be honest and transparent. Without pro-active communication on the part of leadership, resistance to change will persist and grow, ambiguity will turn to distrust and, ultimately, hostility will develop toward those in leadership. Communication will not only positively impact the employees, but other stakeholders (national office personnel, local domestic churches, etc.) who can also contribute to healthy growth through change.
This communication will include a few important elements. Firstly, all communication will include addressing the underlying fears associated with the changes. These fears are best discovered through an initial listening phase prior to implementing the necessary changes. We will be initiating this phase in the coming weeks. Mazzei and Quarantino (2013) noted that a listening, information-gathering phase at the outset of change enhances chances of success for organizations. This finding was supported by Erving (2006) who noted that a low level of support for change is a strong predictor for change success or failure. Gauging this level of support is often made possible by organizational leaders initiating a listening phase. Furthermore, Stroh (2007) noted that successful change depends greatly on employee involvement in the change process. Inviting and encouraging participation by all employees can be accomplished during this listening phase. Our communication, then, will include addressing information gathered during this initial listening phase. Secondly, communication will include specifics on our proposed timeline of change initiatives. This will also address these underlying fears of uncertainty with specific dates and times in which the looming changes will take effect. Included in the communication of timeline will be incremental steps that you can take to ease the transition into the new organizational norms and processes. Finally, communication will include how these changes are beneficial to the individual as well as the organization. While resistance to change is normal and expected, we understand that employees are more likely to receive organizational changes favorably when they are able to process the changes and understand how these new changes will positively impact them and the organization to which they are committed. With these action steps, it is our hope that we will be in a better position to change and adapt well in our operations in China.
Aflac. (2016). Corporate social responsibility report. Retrieved from https://www.aflac.com/about-aflac/corporate-citizenship/corporate-social-responsibility-report/default.aspx
Alas, R. (2006). Ethic in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 237-247. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9088-3
Buono, A. F., & Kerber, K. W. (2010). Intervention and organizational change: Building organizational change capacity. EBS Review, (27), 9-21. Accessed at http://ebsjournal.com/ on June 16, 2019.
Cateora, P. R., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2011). International marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Chamberlain, G. (2018, June 17). Amazon supplier in China will tackle illegal work practices. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/17/amazon-foxconn-china-will-tackle-illegal-work-practices
Christian and Missionary Alliance. (2018). About us. Retrieved from https://www.cmalliance.org/about/
Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review 86(4), 60-67.
Elving, W. (2006). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2). Doi:10.1108/13563280510596943
Ethisphere. (2018). Leading practices and trends from the 2018 world’s most ethical companies: An ethisphere research report. Retrieved from https://bela.ethisphere.com/practices-trends-2018-wmec/
Gobble, M.M. (2015). Designing for change. Research-Technology Management, 58(3), 64-66. doi:10.5437/08956308X5803005
Heuvel, M. V., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004
Lerner, M. (2014). Successfully adapting to change. Independent Banker, 64(3), 68-72. Accessed at http://independentbanker.org/ on June 16, 2019.
Lestrange, J. J., & Tolstikov-Mast, Y. (2013). Can global organizations use values-based leadership to combat bribery and corruption? Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 10(4), 41-56.
Mazzei, A., & Quaratino, L. (2013). Designing organizational change: Learning from a grounded research project. Journal of Management and Change, 30(1), 166-179. Accessed at http://emeraldinsight.com/journal/jocm on June 16, 2019.
McAleese, D., and Hargie, O. (2004). Five guiding principles of culture management: A synthesis of best practice. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), 155-170. doi:10.1108/13632540510621399
Neera, J. & Anjanee, S., & Shoma, M. (2010). Leadership dimensions and challenges in the new millennium. Advances in Management, 3(3), 18-24.
Park, C. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257-301.
Sadri, G. (2013). Choosing conflict resolution by culture. Industrial Management, 10(1), 10-15.
Senior, B. (1997). Organizational Change. London: Pittman Publishing.
Stroh, U. (2007). Relationships and participation: A complexity science approach to change communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(2), 123-137. doi:10.1080/15531180701298916
Werhane, P. H. (2014). Competing with Integrity: Richard De George and the ethics of global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 737-742. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2183-y
NG, LR, NCU, USAR
My collection of personal papers written over the years