An organization’s culture is built over time as members develop beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that seem to work and are transmitted to new recruits. Defined as “the way we do things around here,” culture anchors an organization’s identity and sense of itself (Bolman & Deal, 2008). According to Bolman and Deal, symbols take many forms in an organization; myths, values and visions. The essence of a visionary company comes in the translation of its core ideology and its own unique drive for progress into the very fabric of the organization” (1994, p. 201). IPPS-A just like most successful organizations has a vision. The vision is to be innovative, aggressively challenge the design and build of the program, do not replicate the old ways of doing business, ensure ease of use of the system for Soldiers, HR professionals and commanders. And finally focus on analytics and dashboards by eliminating reports. IPPS-A uses the Agile methodology in the building process, that means the design, development and deployment of the system is done on multiple releases, i.e Release 1, 2,3 and 4. As part of the agile methodology, there are Sprint and Stake holder reviews at the build stage and User Juries at the testing phase. Feed back to the organization. For example the program is at the testing phase of release 2 and the design phase of release 3. What this means is that the whiles the test team are the main players in release 2 at this point the design and build teams are players in release 3 at this particular. The design and build team organizes and host all the sprint and stakeholder reviews, where the initial design is presented to stakeholders for their critique and feedback. At the user juries the stakeholders are afforded the opportunity to have hands-on the system that has been built to provide feedback on the usability of the system. These practices have a positive impact on the organization because from the design to the test phase stakeholders are involved and their concerns are considered in the process.
Reference
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Post #2
As a refresher, I selected a dynamics analysis on the US Navy’s Airspeed and Continuous Process Improvement programs. Very plainly, we take a step back and look at our processes and agendas from a new, outside perspective in a pursuit to overhaul the methods and procedures by reducing wastes and constraints. The ultimate aim is increased efficiency and productivity by properly accessing the resources provided by human capital.
The culture of the navy definitively defines us as a subgroup. We have a separate language fostered by the daily incorporation of acronyms, euphemisms, and over-abundance of jargon. The behavioral traits are also akin to a systematic and engrained process to standardize the communication methods between fellow service members, as well. This subculture is very unique because it prompts raised eyebrows and inquisitive insight from the “outsider-looking-in” perspective. The culture under the influence of the Airspeed and Continuous Process Improvement programs also garners a standardized approach, but it starts with the analysis and uprooting of norms within the navy culture (specifically aviation communities). It ends with a new alignment of the same agendas by going about the outcomes in foreign or different manners. The culture is comprised of a diverse group of individuals under the same organizational umbrella in the potential attainment of unified improvement toward a desired end, as stated above.
The assumptions and beliefs are caused by conflicts due to the perspectives involved. For example, at the lower level the core team “invades” the work center to re-designate priorities re-align personal duties and responsibilities and implement methods to enforce their objectives. Permanently assigned members of the work centers typically provide a form of backlash for the restructuring movement.
At the management level, the perspective is typically focused on the assumptions of successful integration at the expense of some temporary discomfort of the work center personnel. This greatly impacts the organization’s culture on the success of the desired goal. Often times at the work center level, especially in an organization with large subgroups like the US Navy, the technicians cannot comprehend the level of magnitude that the reshaping of their work center can provide as an influence. Plainly, the restructuring of their work center may potentially reduce millions of dollars in wasted resources and manhours.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Morita, H. (2005). Multi-Skilling, Delegation and Continuous Process Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of US-Japanese Work Organizations. Economica, 72, 69-93.
The organizational culture at Training Support Center, Hampton Roads can be described as having cliques and factions and lacking vertical and lateral communications between the service centers and headquarters. The assumptions and beliefs that influence how things are done is eerily similar to the idiom “don’t mess with my rice bowl” and to not involve yourself in matters you have no control over. As stated by Gallagher (2003), “If there is one common denominator in both these examples it is that organizational practices matter, but organizational culture matters even more” (p. 9).
The impact of the organization’s culture in achieving the desired goals is that it has hindered success and contributed to failure. Since there is a division between the active duty service members and civilians values, job duties, beliefs, and expectations, animosity is created that causes a lack of trust and cooperation which affects overall command performance and goal achievement. This requires constant meetings between departments to determine what is needed to increase performance. According to Levant (1998), “Performance improvement needs are either expressed in current terms or predicted for future identified competencies. They are frequently presented in broad terms (e.g., supervisory sills, communication or presentation skills, etc.). When time, authority, and normal practice permit, the dedicated HRD professional will have face-to-face conversations with at least some of the population to gain a more specific picture of needs” (p. 5).
References
Gallagher, R. S. (2003). The Soul of an Organization. Ithaca: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Levant, J. (1998). HRD Survival Skills: Essential strategies to promote training and development within your
organization. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.