Spirit of Organization

Organizations use performance appraisals to determine an employee’s level and span of competence. They use this information both to place employees in the job for which they are most qualified and also to create a plan to help in their professional development. In an ideal situation, the goal is to both increase the employee’s value to the organization and also enhance their career potential. To get the most out of such appraisals, organizations should try to find points of convergence between the individual, current organizational operations, and the demands of a changing external environment. In this post, I want to explore some of the reasons why competency-based assessment systems sometimes fail to achieve their intended purpose and also explore the possibility that the Knowledge-Wisdom matrix (described in the previous post) might provide a model for coming up with a more holistic approach to performance assessment.

I would like to suggest that, if these competency-based assessments fail to take into account the intersection of knowledge and wisdom, they will fall short of their objective. Only by taking a holistic approach to assessing employee competence can the organization gain an accurate understanding of that employee’s potential for improvement and growth.

Despite the wide usage of competency-based assessments–which would appear to argue for their effectiveness–some researchers point out that these systems begin with misguided assumptions. For example, Hollenbeck, et al. (2006) question the assumption that skill at carrying out the activities necessary to perform a job with efficiency necessarily translates into optimal organizational performance (p. 171). Just because you can skin a cat with great skill and efficiency, does not mean that the external environment wants a skinned cat.

Other critics cite problems with the fundamental assumptions underlying competency-based assessments (Finegold, Lawler, & Ledford, 1998; Jubb & Robotham, 1997). For example, there is little research to support the assumption that individual competency necessarily influences organizational performance. In fact, there is a body of research that indicates that excellent leaders are likely to fail competency-based assessments (Cunningham, 2006, p. 4). Hollenbeck et al (2006) point out cases where the adoption of competency-based assessment systems has actually been counterproductive to the effort to develop leaders. This is because such assessments use measures based on past performance, whereas what is needed for developing leadership potential is a way to assess how well an employee is able to tackle the unanticipated realities of the future and of change.

Perhaps the main reason why competency-based assessments fall short of achieving their purpose is that they focus entirely on knowledge (as defined in the previous post) and fail to measure wisdom, which is much more critical for leadership. They focus almost exclusively on the measurement of observable behaviors, ignoring other critical factors such as: personal values (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, pp. 49-51), emotional intelligence (Stein, 2006), and the spiritual dimension of human nature (Occhiogrosso, 1993; Rigoglioso, 1999). Competency-based assessments also rarely consider organizational dimensions or the impact of the external environment.

A holistic approach to assessment would not only measure competencies (knowledge), but would also seek to measure wisdom, that is to say, they would seek to measure the internal dimensions of the individual such as values, hopes, personal vision, self-esteem, and one’s sense of meaning. Attempts to reduce employees to a set of external skills and cognitive intelligences are unable to detect the hidden potential of an employee. A holistic approach to assessment would seek to discover the strategic intersections between the employee’s total person and the organization’s competitive strategy for dealing with the future. Leaders would be able to look at the combination of an employee’s knowledge and wisdom and design strategies for developing both dimensions as it plans for the future.

Despite the problems and concerns regarding competency-based assessments, they can still play an important role in the pursuit of organizational effectiveness. However, I would encourage leaders to look at these assessments as only one part of a more complete, holistic approach to assessment. Whatever systems are put into place, an effort should be made to identify those individuals who have grown in wisdom and who may be ready to take on new challenges that would require the development of new knowledge. Leaders should also seek to identify the strategic intersections between the individual as a total person and the organization as a total system, including its mission, strategy, internal culture, and external environment.

[Post a Reply]

Note: When I started this post, I was intending it to be a summary of an article that my good friends and colleagues, Bob Gerwig and Scott Yorkovich, and I wrote together and presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the Northeast Business and Economics Association (2007). However, the further I got into it, the more I realized that this post has become a totally new article. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to Bob and Scott for their contribution to the discussion of the limitations of competency-based assessments.

Sources Cited

Cunningham, I. (2006). “We need more than competence: What about excellence?” Development and Learning in Organizations, 20(2), 4-4.

Finegold, D., Lawler, E. E. I., & Ledford, G. E. (1998). “Organizing for Competencies & Capabilities.” In Mohrman, S. A., Galbraith, J. R., Lawler, E. E. I., & Associates (Eds.), Tomorrow’s Organization: Crafting Winning Capabilities in a Dynamic World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hollenbeck, G. P., McCall, M. W., & Silzer, R. F. (2006). “Leadership competency models.” The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 398-413.

Jubb, R. & Robotham, D. (1997). “Competencies in management development: Challenging the myths.” Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4/5), 171-175.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Occhiogrosso, P. (1993). Through the labyrinth: Stories of the search for spiritual transformation in everyday life. New York: Viking Penguin.

Rigoglioso, M. (1999, October 8 2007). “Spirit at work: The search for deeper meaning in the workplace.” Working Knowledge for Business Leaders.

Stein, S. J. (2006). The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence & Your Success: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

I’m trying to create a model that describes employee development in organizations. Please feel free to help me improve this model if you have any suggestions. Maybe you can identify more options than what I present here. Please remember, however, that a model is simply a way to squeeze reality into a manageable form. No model captures the full complexity of real life.

To understand the model, we need to first ask the question: What do employees bring to the organization? I suggest that people bring a combination of knowledge and wisdom. I am using the term “knowledge” as referring to our understanding of the way things work in the external world of material objects and people. Wisdom, on the other hand, has to do with our understanding and ability to tap into the internal, intangible, realities such as personal motivation, aspirations, dreams, and vision. It also has to do with discerning the demons that incapacitate the soul such as disconnection from oneself and a sense of meaninglessness. Wise people understand how and to what degree these internal realities interact with and influence the external realities. Saint Augustine makes the distinction between these two kinds of attributes in the following quote:

The knowledge of things terrestrial and celestial is commonly thought much of by men. Yet those doubtless judge better who prefer to that knowledge, the knowledge of themselves; and that mind is more praiseworthy which knows even its own weakness, than that which, without regard to this, searches out, and even comes to know, the ways of the stars, or which holds fast such knowledge already acquired, while ignorant of the way by which itself [sic] to enter into its own proper health and strength (Preface to Book IV).

This latter kind of “knowledge of themselves” is what I am calling wisdom. It is the combination of these two kinds of understanding that marks the mature individual and the highly valuable employee.

Some people come to the organization highly skilled at what they do. Others are much lower on the knowledge scale. Regarding wisdom, some employees have honed this inner sense to such a degree that they can rapidly size up and make the connection between that intangible world and its effects on the behavior of people and organizational systems. For example, one might notice that certain employees respond defensively at efforts to assess their department. They may even engage in passive resistance to the process by dragging their feet when it comes time to write up the reports. What’s more, they are probably unaware that they are even engaging in these kinds of subversive behaviors. These are all possible indicators of weak ego strength and, consequently, the inability to face objective assessment.

These two qualities (knowledge and wisdom) provide a double continuum from which we can develop a matrix as follows:

The Knowledge-Wisdom Matrix

1. In the first quadrant where both knowledge and wisdom are low, people are basically useless to the organization. Most people are likely not to be hired if that is their situation. However, some companies like Chrysler, have partnered with area community colleges to take young people from even this stage and develop them into capable auto mechanics.
2. The second quadrant represents those individuals who are high in knowledge but low in wisdom. They may be completely unaware of the spiritual dimension of life. When others try to bring up these issues, they try to downplay their importance. For them, the only relevant issue is what’s happening out there where we can see it, touch it, feel it, smell it, and hear it.
3. The third quadrant is where we find the mature employee who has a high level of knowledge in his or her area of expertise and has also developed a profound understanding of the value and influence of the intangibles. Such people make great leaders and can be a tremendous asset to the organization.
4. The fourth quadrant is where it really gets interesting. People who have a well-developed base of wisdom, but who lack knowledge are usually those who have grown personally beyond their position. They are ready for larger challenges, perhaps for the challenge of moving into a position of leadership. Such people need to add new knowledge to their skill set to fit new possibilities. In many organizations, however, such people are stuck and their potential is not allowed to flourish because of some inhibiting assumptions on the part of the top management; but that’s for another post.

What do you think? Does this model have some potential? What are its flaws? Where does it differ from the realities of the workplace? How might it apply in the church?

[Post a Response]

Notes

I want to acknowledge my borrowing from Blanchard, Hersey and Johnson’s “Situational Leadership” model for the basic design of the matrix. However, their model focuses on the leader’s behavior in response to the employee’s growth and development. Instead of comparing knowledge and wisdom, their model posits the dimensions of directive as opposed to supportive leadership behavior.

Works Cited

Augustine. “On the Holy Trinity.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, 3. New York: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1890.

This past week, I had the opportunity to present some ideas that I have been working with for some time now about the concept of organizational configuration as that concept applies to the church. This presentation was to a group of Hispanic pastors in the city of Memphis, TN. It was a 30-minute presentation using PowerPoint. I tried to follow Guy Kawasawki’s 10/20/30 Rule, which is to use only 10 slides, speak for only 20 minutes, and use a minimum of 30 point lettering. In fact, I used three font settings for each slide: 75 point Century Gothic, 44 point Century Gothic, and 44 Arial. Each slide illustrates one idea and serves as background for my discussion. The reason I am writing about this is that I see so many very poor PowerPoint presentations by otherwise intelligent people and there are just a few key concepts that, once you grasp them, can enhance tremendously your presentations.

Anyway, as I was saying, this presentation was an introduction to a more comprehensive 4-hour seminar that I do on organizational configuration. The basic idea is that all organizations are systems of interrelated parts that make up a unique configuration or corporate “personality.” Dess, Newport, and Rasheed (1993) said it this way:

Configurations are inherently multidimensional entities in which key attributes are tightly interrelated and mutually reinforcing (784).

Configurations have also been defined as “commonly occurring clusters of attributes of organizational strategies, structures, and processes” (Ketchen, Thompson, & Snow, 1993, 1278).

I know these quotes are a bit dated and that organizational configuration theory has been largely replaced today by theories of organizational culture and organizational systems, but I think the concept of configuration is still a valid one and very helpful for understanding organizational life. It’s a way of giving the mind some new categories into which to fit the realities of corporate or ecclesiastical life. Once you grasp the idea, you can begin to see patterns of organizational behavior, especially if you have had the “blessing” of having worked with many organizations. After awhile, with a little creativity, you can begin to give names to these patterns. Of course, so-called “experts” have already done that, but why not give it a shot yourself? Use some metaphors to describe the different configurations you see in the organizational or church world.

If you would like to see this presentation, click here. Remember, however that it’s in Spanish. I will try to translate it into English soon.

[Post a Reply]

Works Cited

Dess, G. G., Newport, S., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1993). Configuration research in strategic management: Key issues & suggestions. Journal of Management, 19(4), 775-795.

Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278-1313.

Photo by Matt Teague (July 18, 2004). Available at www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=24018&

An intriguing concept that I have come across in the literature of organization development is what is called “socio-technical systems.” It has it roots in a research project conducted by the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s and led by Eric Trist and Fred Emery. The idea is that new technologies always have an effect on the social systems of an organization. By “social systems,” I mean the personal interactions and social networks that are a vital part of any organization. Trist and Emery conducted their research at a coal-mining operation in the UK.

The coal-mining company installed a new system that was supposed to increase productivity. Whereas the miners used to work in small shifts made up of individuals with diverse capabilities who were responsible for completing the entire process. The new approach called for larger shifts of specialized minors who would be spread out over a large area, isolated from one another. It was called the “long-wall” method. During one shift, minors specialized in cutting were sent into the mines. During the next shift, those who were skilled as using the conveyors would replace the earlier shift. Another shift would work on expanding the shafts, creating new entranceways, and shoring up the ceilings.

It all made sense from a logical perspective. Instead of wasting precious time bumping into each other as the minors performed these various tasks, they could concentrate on their specialty and not be bothered by the other workers. The only problem was that productivity plummeted. The workers became more despondent and endured less. This fall in productivity was attributed to the lack of variety and the absence of the camaraderie that the miners enjoyed in the old system. Under the old system they felt more like complete human beings because they could perform a variety of tasks; now they were like machines doing only one thing all day long and without the joking and conversation with others. Appelbaulm (1997) summarized it this way:

The message was clear: a technological change that appears quite rational from a purely engineering perspective can disrupt the existing social system so as to reduce greatly the anticipated benefits of the new technology.

In spite of the fact that this relationship was recognized nearly 50 years ago, today it continues to be overlooked when organizations consider the implementation of new technologies. Often the only criteria that are used to base IT decisions are cost and novelty. The IT people want the latest technologies and management wants the most economical solution. Too seldom is the question asked: “How will this affect the relationships among our workforce?”

Technology is an important aspect of an organization’s processes, but it is not the only consideration, nor is it the most important consideration.

[Post a Reply]

Works Cited

Applebaum, Steven H. “Socio-Technical Systems Theory: An Intervention Strategy for Organizational Development.” Management Decision 35, no. 6 (1997): 452. (6 February 2004).

Should the pastor also be an elder? Should elders approve all decisions? What is the function of a board of elders? Some might say that the function of the elders is to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation. Does this mean that the elders should not make decisions about the physical facilities of the church? I don’t think so, because the physical environment affects the spiritual environment. All of these are questions about structure and they all lead to a larger question: “Has God mandated a specific, clearly-defined, unchanging, and universal structure for His church? Many Christians believe that He has.

I want to question this belief. The source of my questioning is two-fold. First, I don’t see the support for it in the Bible. Second, such an idea conflicts with my understanding of the purpose and nature of organizational structure. Structure should not be rigid and unchanging, but rather it should be one of the most flexible aspects of organizational design.

I believe the first-century church was able to function as a kind of self-organizing chaos because the early Christians truly believed that Jesus Christ was directly and literally present in their midst and the He exercised the role of Chief Executive Officer for the decision-making process of early Christian leaders. One of the most intriguing things I find in this discussion is the similarity between the New Testament church and recent theories of organizational structure that emphasize removing hierarchical barriers and that see structure more as a process of emergent adaptation.

I believe that structure should be the most flexible aspect of an organization. Structure needs to be dominated by and bend to the will of strategy. Structure is an instrument or means for achieving the strategy; it is a servant of strategy.

I recognize, however, that this is rarely true in practice. People are more likely to fight for their sacred structures to such an extent that they end up forgetting the original core values that created that structure in a time and place that it truly functioned to serve the strategy. A church that gives preeminence to structure will always be heavy in management and very light in leadership because leadership has to do with change. Such a church is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

What we need to realize is that the alternative to change is obsolescence and that is far more painful than change. The question is how to manage change while at the same time protecting our core values and strategic focus. The bottom line is that we need to get back to our roots, the roots of the Great Commission to cross cultural and societal barriers as we seek to help people connect up with God through His Son Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. All structural concerns should bend to the service of this end (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

In his book, The Learning Paradigm College, John Tagg says that integrity “entails that we continuously maintain the vision by changing practices, by adjusting [the] work on the periphery so that it makes a good fit with the core” (p. 288). I consider myself a conservative both politically and theologically. However, I’ve observed with dismay how my fellow conservatives often don’t seem to be able to make a distinction between the core of their conservative values and the peripheral ways in which these values are expressed. In fact, over time, it seems like groups experience a relentless shift away from the core toward an ever-increasing focus on the periphery.

Charles Handy used an illustration of an “inside-out doughnut” to describe an organization that knows how to focus on the core while empowering its people to act responsibly and autonomously on the periphery. The core of the doughnut, instead of being empty, is full. This is the part of our work that is essential to what we are supposed to be doing. It represents our core values. The outer ring of the doughnut is empty (hence the inside-out doughnut). This outer ring represents “our opportunity to make a difference, to go beyond the bounds of duty, to live up to our full potential” (p. 70). This, says Handy, is “our ultimate responsibility in life, a responsibility always larger than duty.”

Too often, we conservatives make the outer limits of the doughnut the sacred zone that must not be tampered with and we so focus on that external doughnut skin that we may even forget completely what the core was all about. At some point, there is a shift and what once was the periphery becomes the core. Jesus had a run-in with a fundamentalist religious group called the Pharisees where He tried to make this point with them, but they weren’t listening. Jesus said to these religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin [valuable spices in the ancient world] and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23, NASB; See also Micah 6:8). What a great visual image of focusing on the peripherals! One can imagine these persnickety old men with their bearded faces bent down over a table, carefully separating ten percent of their spices so they can give their tithe at the next temple worship service, all the while ignoring their own ruthless treatment of outsiders, their racism, and their love for money.

Churches are notorious for turning the peripherals into sacred cows. I know of a church that was considering the possibility of building a new worship center. I overheard one of the women of that group say: “I’m all for it as long as it looks like a church.” My thought was: “Since when did “looking like a church” become a core value of Christianity? What about serving people? What about helping people get connected with God?

Everyone knows the story of how the Swiss watch companies lost the market to the digital watches. How might the story have been different if these companies had focused on the core value of helping people to keep track of their time, rather than focusing on making mechanical watches? There seems to exist this natural tendency to slide into a mode of defending the solution to such an extent that we forget what the problem was. And once we forget what the problem was, we fail to understand our current problems and we fail to foresee those problems that are on the horizon.

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

Tagg, John. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker. ISBN: 01740-0249

Handy, Charles. 1994. The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 0-87584-643-2

New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 23:23.

Vision is one of those ancient words that has been brought back into the world of modern organizational theory. It is also one of those concepts that are so difficult to define but that everyone knows it when they see it. What exactly is a vision and why is it so important? Why is it that so many organizations seem to be in a drift pattern, with no clear direction, slaves to daily routines, having no connection with ultimate meaning? To understand what vision is, perhaps we need to first understand what it is not.

A vision statement is not a guarantee of success. While having such a statement is important, without implementation, a clearly defined vision will accomplish nothing. It’s a little like the great debate that James was having when he argued that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Vision without implementation is dead.

A vision is not wishful thinking. A real vision does not occur in a factless vacuum (Kotter, 1997). It comes about through “a tough, sometimes exhausting process of gathering and analyzing information. People who articulate visions aren’t magicians but broad-based strategic thinkers who are willing to take risks” (p. 27).

A vision is not simply a mantra that emanates mystical energy merely by vain repetition. It will accomplish nothing if all it does is hang on the wall, carved into a granite plaque. It can only accomplish its task when it has become the life blood and heartbeat of the organization. It will propel the organization toward excellence only when it has become a heartfelt sense of direction that is well-informed and backed by a team of workers willing to put forth great effort to bring it about (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

Cited

Kotter, John P. “What Leaders Really Do.” In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations, ed. Robert P. Vecchio, 24-34: University of Notre Dame, 1997.

In my discussions with church leaders about the importance of a mission statement, I have occasionally come across some who feel that the church does not need a mission statement because it already has one in the Great Commission. The Great Commission is the central New Testament mandate from the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples to “go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19, NLT). Concerning this mandate, Willmington (1997) writes: “This final instruction from the Lord . . . has been the marching order of the church down through the ages” (p. 547).

This mandate is the core mission of the Church. Any church that ignores it–or replaces it with what it considers to be a more politically correct purpose–is no longer functioning as the Body of Jesus Christ on earth. Every structure that the church designs, every process that it puts into place, every effort to motivate others and every human resource policy that it adopts must be judged by how effective it is at helping the church to accomplish the great commission. When it comes to the Church, we have no right to replace that central purpose with something else, no matter how unpopular or inconvenient it may seem.

On the other hand, it is also true that a church has specific capabilities and works within a particular community. Just like an individual, a congregation also has a unique calling within and consistent with the general calling of the Great Commission. What the apostle Paul wrote about individual Christians in I Corinthians, chapter 12:4-6, can also be said of churches: “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone” (ESV). Within the unity of the one Great Commission, there is great variety in terms of how that mission is accomplished. This means that every church will have a particular focus that gives its mission statement a quality of uniqueness, just as every individual has a unique personality.

The following questions may help a congregation’s top leadership team to discover their unique mission.

1. Which sector of the population have you been called to go to and make disciples?*
2. What are the basic felt needs of this group?
3. Does your church have the capabilities and resources to meet any of these needs?
4. What are the constraints under which your particular church must work?

By discussing these questions with your leadership team, your church can begin to develop a feel for the unique mission statement that describes the calling of God for this particular congregation.

*Note: Christians will often immediately answer this question by saying: “the whole world!” You need to point out that no one congregation can take on such a huge task. It’s like answering the question, “How do you eat an elephant?” One bite at a time. God has uniquely equipped individual congregations to bite off one chunk of the elephant and to specialize in that chunk. No one congregation is expected to eat the whole elephant (Read more…)

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Cor 12:4-6.

Holy Bible : New Living Translation. “Text Edition”–Spine., 2nd ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), Ex 13:11-13.

H. L. Willmington, Willmington’s Bible Handbook (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1997), 547.