By Kim Jong-nam
As an organizational development consultant, I work with organizations of a variety of sizes, ranging from more than 10,000 employees to fewer than 100. The ultimate purpose of diagnosing an organization is to find out what values and dilemmas they truly have. Thus, my work requires me to get as close as I can to each organization's core. However, there are often invisible barriers that prevent my diagnoses from being accurate. Eliminating these barriers before diagnoses are performed results in more meaningful outcomes.
First and foremost, many organizations are not very interested in using diagnoses as an opportunity to learn. That is, many of them have a tendency to think that going through a diagnosis is just a routine annual event: something that they need to do before the year's end so they can see their scores. It should be remembered that medical check-ups are done to maintain one's health, and not just for the sake of the numbers. If the organization is not already thinking seriously about where it currently is and where it wants to go, undergoing a diagnosis will not be all that meaningful, as the organization will merely continue as usual afterwards.
Second, even though some organizations are actually enthusiastic about the diagnostic process, they do not unlock its full potential because they bring with them the perspective that they already have about their organization, which is limited. Many organizations concentrate too much on what they are already interested in. They are blind to what the diagnostics can show about the organization as a whole. If, in getting back the results of your medical exam, you look only at your kidneys, you can certainly ensure that they are healthy, but you are doing yourself a disservice if you do not also look at your liver, your lungs, or even your brain. In the same vein, some companies focus only on what they most need to improve, and ignore their strengths ― but knowing more about their strengths is also essential to their future. In addition, they may focus too much on their current realities without regard to what kind of future they want to create.
Third, organizations must dig deeper to examine who/what is truly responsible for certain phenomena. Many organizations are inclined to find specific people or departments to blame. But, since organizational effectiveness cannot rely on individuals and departments only, the organization as a whole should be examined simultaneously. It is tempting to find the most obvious "cause" of the problem and assume that this individual or department is the entire reason for this problem. However, there are a lot of factors in any situation that can be directly influential in resolving issues or dilemmas. For example, there are many occasions when organizations believe that managers need to upgrade their performance management skills or that the HR department needs to improve its performance structure ― but the fault may actually lie with the compensation and promotion systems. This means that sometimes problems are wider and deeper than mere individuals or departments. Hammering a nail into the wrong spot may destroy the desk. Thus, it is necessary to ask two types of questions simultaneously: the individual and the systemic. Both must be kept in mind: "Do I have enough knowledge and skills for work?" and "Do people in my organization have enough knowledge and skills?" "Does my leader manage effectively?" and "Do the leaders in my organization manage effectively?" "Am I doing the work successfully?" and "Are the employees in my organization doing the work successfully?" "Am I pursuing change?" and "Is my organization pursuing change?"
Effective cultural diagnosis must be reliable ― that is, consistent within different contexts ― which means that a diagnosis in a specific company can measure whether this company has what is generally accepted to be a desirable culture. Additionally, effective diagnosis must also be valid, which means that what is being targeted as the most important elements of an effective organizational culture can be measured accurately. Many companies are focused only on the final scores and negative aspects of their diagnostic results. However, what is truly important is first knowing whether your cultural points of view are reliable and valid. This is only possible if you have an understanding about who your organization is, where your organization is going, and what your organization needs to do to reach its destination. An organizational cultural diagnosis is most powerful if it is viewed with true interest in the organization itself, and not just in the final score given by the external consultant.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant who works both virtually and in person.
 |
First and foremost, many organizations are not very interested in using diagnoses as an opportunity to learn. That is, many of them have a tendency to think that going through a diagnosis is just a routine annual event: something that they need to do before the year's end so they can see their scores. It should be remembered that medical check-ups are done to maintain one's health, and not just for the sake of the numbers. If the organization is not already thinking seriously about where it currently is and where it wants to go, undergoing a diagnosis will not be all that meaningful, as the organization will merely continue as usual afterwards.
Second, even though some organizations are actually enthusiastic about the diagnostic process, they do not unlock its full potential because they bring with them the perspective that they already have about their organization, which is limited. Many organizations concentrate too much on what they are already interested in. They are blind to what the diagnostics can show about the organization as a whole. If, in getting back the results of your medical exam, you look only at your kidneys, you can certainly ensure that they are healthy, but you are doing yourself a disservice if you do not also look at your liver, your lungs, or even your brain. In the same vein, some companies focus only on what they most need to improve, and ignore their strengths ― but knowing more about their strengths is also essential to their future. In addition, they may focus too much on their current realities without regard to what kind of future they want to create.
Third, organizations must dig deeper to examine who/what is truly responsible for certain phenomena. Many organizations are inclined to find specific people or departments to blame. But, since organizational effectiveness cannot rely on individuals and departments only, the organization as a whole should be examined simultaneously. It is tempting to find the most obvious "cause" of the problem and assume that this individual or department is the entire reason for this problem. However, there are a lot of factors in any situation that can be directly influential in resolving issues or dilemmas. For example, there are many occasions when organizations believe that managers need to upgrade their performance management skills or that the HR department needs to improve its performance structure ― but the fault may actually lie with the compensation and promotion systems. This means that sometimes problems are wider and deeper than mere individuals or departments. Hammering a nail into the wrong spot may destroy the desk. Thus, it is necessary to ask two types of questions simultaneously: the individual and the systemic. Both must be kept in mind: "Do I have enough knowledge and skills for work?" and "Do people in my organization have enough knowledge and skills?" "Does my leader manage effectively?" and "Do the leaders in my organization manage effectively?" "Am I doing the work successfully?" and "Are the employees in my organization doing the work successfully?" "Am I pursuing change?" and "Is my organization pursuing change?"
Effective cultural diagnosis must be reliable ― that is, consistent within different contexts ― which means that a diagnosis in a specific company can measure whether this company has what is generally accepted to be a desirable culture. Additionally, effective diagnosis must also be valid, which means that what is being targeted as the most important elements of an effective organizational culture can be measured accurately. Many companies are focused only on the final scores and negative aspects of their diagnostic results. However, what is truly important is first knowing whether your cultural points of view are reliable and valid. This is only possible if you have an understanding about who your organization is, where your organization is going, and what your organization needs to do to reach its destination. An organizational cultural diagnosis is most powerful if it is viewed with true interest in the organization itself, and not just in the final score given by the external consultant.
Kim Jong-nam is the founding CEO of META (www.imeta.co.kr) and a global organizational development consultant who works both virtually and in person.
