Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Cultural Reversal: Why does Obedience Lose with the Initiative?


 

The article deals with the question which management philosophy is better, management philosophy based on culture HOW or management philosophy based on culture WHY. With respect to this article, author used these techniques, namely quantitative research, case methodology and literature analysis. Consequently, from the research, it can be predicted that most companies prefer a management model which inclines more towards planning, organizing and controlling than to leadership. This approach is a part of the traditional management system through which the organizational culture of "HOW" is implemented. The hidden costs of this model are apathetic staff, lost revenues and mainly work-related stress. These factors, which cause a lack of participation in the workplace, similarly lead to paralysis of innovation capabilities of most companies. They negatively affect the overall productivity of the economy and cause considerable social costs. However, there is also alternative management system based on the WHY culture. This management system, which releases initiative, creativity and enthusiasm, was investigated in the Toyota, FAVI and W. L. Gore. Author found out that these companies are able to eliminate the negative consequences of the traditional management model. The key features of this model are trust, freedom and responsibility, all three of which enrich the system with the ability to learn iteratively from one's own mistakes.

Keywords

Bureaucracy, Freedom, Leadership, Management Innovation, Organization Culture, Performance, Responsibility, Trust.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Argyris, C. (1957). The individual and organization: Some problems of mutual adjustment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-24.
  • Atkinson, W. (2000). Managing Stress, Electrial World, 6, 41-42.
  • Bennis, W. (1994). An Invented Life: Reflections On Leadership And Change. New York: Basic Books.
  • Bennis, W., Managing the Dream: Leadership in the 21st Century. Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development. 1990, vol. 27(5), s. 44-46.
  • Burns, M. J. (1982). Leadership, New York: Harper.
  • Carney, M., B., & Getz, I. (2013). Svoboda v praci. Praha: PeopleComm.
  • Cartwight, s., Cooper, C., L. (1997). Managing Workplace Stress. California: Sage.
  • Collins, J. (2008). Good to Great. Praha: Grada Publishing.
  • Cortina, L., M., Magley, V., J., Williams, J., H., Langout, R., D. (2001). Incivility in the Workplace: Incidence and Impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80.
  • Covey, R., S. (2010). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Praha: Management Press.
  • Covey, R., S. (2010). The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. Praha: Management Press.
  • Drucker, F., P. (2004). Fungujici spolecnost. Praha: Management Press.
  • Drucker, F., P. (2002). To nejdulezitejsi z Druckera v jednom svazku. Praha: Management Press.
  • Drucker, F., P. (2001). Vyzvy managementu pro 21. století. Praha: Management Press.
  • Frick, D., & Spears, L. (1996). On becoming a servant leader: The private writings of Robert K. Greenleaf, San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Galagan, P. A. (1998). eter Drucker. Training & Development, 52, 22-27.
  • Gallup Study. 2006. Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation. Gallup Management Journal. http://gmj.gallup.com/content/24880/Gallup-study-Engaged-Employees-InpsireCompany.aspx
  • Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
  • Greenleaf, R. K., Fraker, A. T., & Spears, L. C. (1996). Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership, (Vol. 157). Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
  • Hamel, G. (2013). What Matters Now. Praha: PeopleComm.
  • Hamel, G., Breen, B. (2008). The Future of Management. Praha: Management Press.
  • Handy, CH. (1999). The Hungry Spirit. Praha: Management Press.
  • Johnson, M. (1996). Taking the lid off leadership. Management Review, 85(11), 59..
  • Kotter, J. (2000). Leading Change. Praha: Management Press.
  • Kotter, J. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 68, 103.
  • Kouzes, J., Posner, B. (2003), The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lazarus, R., S. (1984). Stress, Apraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
  • Madison, A. (1991). Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View. New York : Oxford University Press.
  • Mariotti, J. (1998). Leadership matters: so does the" soft" side of management. Industry Week, 247(6), 70.
  • Maslow, A. H. (1965). Humanistic science and transcendent experiences.Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 5(2), 219-227.
  • McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, 21, 166.
  • Morel, M. (2007). FAVI: L'entreprise qui croit que l'homme est bon. Paris: Humanisme & Organisations.
  • Neuman, J. H. (2004). Injustice, stress, and aggression in organizations. The dark side of organizational behavior, pp. 62-102.
  • Nohria, N., William, J., & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 42-53.
  • Peters, T. (1994). Thriving on chaos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Schein, E. H. (1992). How can organizations learn faster?: the problem of entering the Green Room. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Semler, R. (2011). Maverick!. Praha: PeopleComm.
  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
  • Sisodia, R, Wolfe, D.B and Sheth, J. (2007). Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose. Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  • Towers Perrin. Global Workforce: Global Report (2007-2008), [online]. [cit. 2015-01-20], https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.simnet.org/resource/group/066D79D1-E2A8-4AB5-B62160E58640FF7B/leadership_workshop_2010/towers_perrin_global_workfor.pdf
  • Towers Perrin. 2007. Engaged Employees Drive the Bottom Line, 2007. [online]. [cit. 2015-01-20], http://www.twrcc.co.za/Engaged employees drive the bottom line.pdf
  • Towers Perrin. 2006. Winning strategies for a global workforce: Attracting, retaining, and engaging employees for competitive advantage. Valhalla, NY: Author.
  • Weathersby, G. B. (1999). Leadership vs. management. Management Review, 88(3), 5.
  • Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
  • Wojcik, J. (2001). Cutting Costs of Stress. Business Insurance, 13, 1-2.
  • Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different. Harvard business, 55, 67-78.

Abstract Views: 54

PDF Views: 20




  • Cultural Reversal: Why does Obedience Lose with the Initiative?

Abstract Views: 54  |  PDF Views: 20

Authors

Abstract


The article deals with the question which management philosophy is better, management philosophy based on culture HOW or management philosophy based on culture WHY. With respect to this article, author used these techniques, namely quantitative research, case methodology and literature analysis. Consequently, from the research, it can be predicted that most companies prefer a management model which inclines more towards planning, organizing and controlling than to leadership. This approach is a part of the traditional management system through which the organizational culture of "HOW" is implemented. The hidden costs of this model are apathetic staff, lost revenues and mainly work-related stress. These factors, which cause a lack of participation in the workplace, similarly lead to paralysis of innovation capabilities of most companies. They negatively affect the overall productivity of the economy and cause considerable social costs. However, there is also alternative management system based on the WHY culture. This management system, which releases initiative, creativity and enthusiasm, was investigated in the Toyota, FAVI and W. L. Gore. Author found out that these companies are able to eliminate the negative consequences of the traditional management model. The key features of this model are trust, freedom and responsibility, all three of which enrich the system with the ability to learn iteratively from one's own mistakes.

Keywords


Bureaucracy, Freedom, Leadership, Management Innovation, Organization Culture, Performance, Responsibility, Trust.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.15759/ijek%2F2015%2Fv3i2%2F85657