What Kind of Culture Are You Actually Leading?
Every organization has a culture. The more interesting question is whether the culture you say you have is the culture your employees actually experience.
The Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed from the work of Robert Quinn and John Rohrbaugh, offers a helpful way to think about organizational culture. Rather than assuming there is one ideal culture for an organization, the framework identifies competing values that organizations have to navigate on a continual basis. Some organizations emphasize flexibility. Others value stability and consistency. Some are primarily focused internally on their people and processes, while others focus externally on competition, and getting timely results.
From those competing priorities emerge four general types of organizational culture: Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy.
The Clan Culture is defined by the idea of “We’re in this together.” Clan cultures emphasize relationships, shared values, and a sense of community. People matter, and there is often significant attention given to collaboration and belonging. At its best, this can create trust, loyalty, and strong interpersonal relationships. However, even good things can become overextended. A culture that values relationships so highly that people avoid holding others accountable or having difficult conversations can eventually undermine performance.
Adhocracy Culture could be defined by the idea of “Let’s try something new.” Adhocracy cultures emphasize flexibility, creativity, and rapid adaptation. These organizations (and people) are often comfortable moving quickly and changing direction when new opportunities emerge. This can be incredibly useful in startups, tech, and other environments where disruptive innovation matters. A common problem in these environments is that constant innovation without sufficient structure and processes can create confusion and conflicts. Sometimes the next great idea is not as important as finishing the current one.
A Market Culture is defined by “Let’s win.” Market cultures are results oriented. Performance, competition, and measurable outcomes are consistently discussed. There is tremendous value in these environments. Organizations have a clear mission, yet when winning becomes the only measure of organizational health, people can slowly become instruments for production rather than valued members of a team. This is subtle, yet it is felt by others within the organizational environment.
Finally, there is the hierarchy Culture, which has a “process for that” mentality. Hierarchy cultures emphasize structure and control. Over my 24 years in the military, I’ve seen how hierarchy cultures can literally protect people and make the burden the final say very clear. The problem emerges when maintaining an outdated process becomes more important than accomplishing the purpose.
The Competing Values Framework reminds readers that leaders have to consistently hold paradox. We need relationships and we also must hold others accountable. Innovation is critical, yet consistentcy is important. The question that leaders must ask is “what does our organization need more of right now, and are we overcorrecting?”
Dr. Cedric Williams is a Licensed Clinical and Consulting Psychologist and Founder and CEO of Legacy Consulting & Research Group. His work focuses on leadership development, executive coaching, assessment, and interpersonal relationships. At Legacy Consulting & Research Group, we help leaders better understand the people, culture, and systems influencing organizational performance. Through executive coaching, team and organizational assessments, and leadership development, we help organizations identify strengths, surface growth areas, and translate insight into meaningful action.
If your team is interested in better understanding its organizational culture or strengthening leadership effectiveness, we would welcome the opportunity to connect.
Reference:
Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the Competing Values Framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(7).
Cedric Williams, Ph.D.
www.legacycrg.com/contact