# data[].attributes.body
Tilbage i OO'erne skrev en række tidligere "regnedrenge" fra Finansministeriet denne ret epokegørende artikel, hvor de beder om tilgivelse for at det med NPM greb lidt rigeligt om sig.

# data[].attributes.body
Artikel af Anders Trillingsgaard og Kurt Klause Klaussen i Mandag Morgen, 5. oktober 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Har den humanistiske ledelse sejret ad helvede til_ - Mandag Morgen - Uafhængigt innovationshus. Analyser og ny viden_

# data[].attributes.body
TV indslag om Job- og AktivitetsCenteret (JAC) i Gentofte Kommune med 90% lederfri organisering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Søndagsmagasinet er nære historier, lokale virksomhedsportrætter, underholdende reportager fra det lokale foreningsliv, egnshistorier og meget mere.

Historier er der mange af, men det er ganske enkelt ikke ofte nok, at vi kan nå forbi hele vores sendeområde i løbet af den daglige nyhedsdækning.

Søndagsmagasinet giver plads til både nyheder og længere historier, hvor der er tid til at gå mere i dybden med fortællingerne. Vi besskriver hvad der optager folk i lokalområdet og hvad der skaber debat.

Holder du til i vores sendeområde omkring byer som eksempelvis Helsinge, Hundested, Frederikssund, Jægerpris, Lejre eller Borup, og har kendskab til en historie, som du synes skal fortælles i Søndagsmagasinet, så send en mail til redaktionen: Sondagsmagasinet@tv2lorry.dk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kom helt tæt på Danmarks bedste offentlige arbejdsplads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I Gentofte ligger en arbejdsplads, som to gange er nomineret - og nu kan smykke sig med titlen - som Danmarks Bedste Offentlige Arbejdsplads. Det er en arbejdsplads af den mere usædvanlige slags: På Job- Aktivitets- og Kompetencecenteret (JAC) i Gentofte er det medarbejderne, der styrer økonomien og lægger strategien.

# data[].attributes.body
Webinar med Amy Edmondson og Christian Ørsted om psykologisk tryghed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gik du glip af Djøfs webinar med Amy C. Edmondson?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Se det optagede webinar med Amy C. Edmondson og Christian Ørsted nedenfor.

# data[].attributes.body
Endnu en artikel om ledelsesspænd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Har du for mange eller for få medarbejdere? Begge dele har betydning for den ledelse, du kan udøve. Selvom der ikke findes et præcist svar på det optimale antal medarbejdere, du kan være leder for, så er der nogle ting, du kan drøfte med din chef, hvis du oplever, at dit ledelsesspænd er for stort.

# data[].attributes.body
Her følger artikel fra debatten om ledelsesspænd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Af: Christian Nyvang Qvick, LEAD – enter next level 18-01-2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mange offentlige ledere får i disse år ansvar for stadig flere medarbejdere. Det kan der være både fordele og ulemper ved. Læs her, hvilke forhold, der spiller ind på, hvor stort et ledelsesspænd, der er passende i din organisation, og hvad kan du gøre, hvis du oplever, at dit ledelsesspænd er for s…

# data[].attributes.headline
10 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREThe Critical Few

# data[].attributes.subject
10 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREThe Critical Few

# data[].attributes.body
10 bud på hvordan man kan arbejde med kulturen af Jon Katzenbach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How often have you heard somebody - a new CEO, a journalist, a management consultant, a leadership guru, a fellow employee - talk about the urgent need to change the culture? They want to make it world-class. To dispense with all the nonsense and negativity that annoys employees and stops good intentions from growing into progress. To bring about an entirely different approach, starting immediately.

These culture critiques are as common as complaints about the weather - and about as effective. How frequently have you seen high-minded aspirations to "change the culture" actually manage to modify the way that people behave and the way in which they work? And how often have you seen noticeable long-term improvements?

What Is Corporate Culture?

At its worst, culture can be a drag on productivity. At its best, it is an emotional energizer. Here's how companies can use it to gain a competitive advantage.

If the answer to these last two questions is "rarely," it wouldn't surprise us. We don't believe that swift, wholesale culture change is possible - or even desirable. After all, a company's culture is its basic personality, the essence of how its people interact and work. However, it is an elusively complex entity that survives and evolves mostly through gradual shifts in leadership, strategy, and other circumstances. We find the most useful definition is also the simplest: Culture is the self-sustaining pattern of behavior that determines how things are done.

Made of instinctive, repetitive habits and emotional responses, culture can't be copied or easily pinned down. Corporate cultures are constantly self-renewing and slowly evolving: What people feel, think, and believe is reflected and shaped by the way they go about their business. Formal efforts to change a culture (to replace it with something entirely new and different) seldom manage to get to the heart of what motivates people, what makes them tick. Strongly worded memos from on high are deleted within hours. You can plaster the walls with large banners proclaiming new values, but people will go about their days, right beneath those signs, continuing with the habits that are familiar and comfortable.

But this inherent complexity shouldn't deter leaders from trying to use culture as a lever. If you cannot simply replace the entire machine, work on realigning some of the more useful cogs. The name of the game is making use of what you cannot change by using some of the emotional forces within your current culture differently.

Three dimensions of corporate culture affect its alignment: symbolic reminders (artifacts that are entirely visible), keystone behaviors (recurring acts that trigger other behaviors and that are both visible and invisible), and mind-sets (attitudes and beliefs that are widely shared but exclusively invisible). Of these, behaviors are the most powerful determinant of real change. What people actually do matters more than what they say or believe. And so to obtain more positive influences from your cultural situation, you should start working on changing the most critical behaviors - the mind-sets will follow. Over time, altered behavior patterns and habits can produce better results.

You may be asking: If it is so hard to change culture, why should we even bother to try? Because an organization's current culture contains several reservoirs of emotional energy and influence. Executives who work with them can greatly accelerate strategic and operating imperatives. When positive culture forces and strategic priorities are in sync, companies can draw energy from the way people feel. This accelerates a company's movement to gain competitive advantage, or regain advantages that have been lost.

Research shows that companies that use a few specific cultural catalysts - that is to say, those that use informal emotional approaches to influencing behavior - are significantly more likely to experience change that lasts. Of the companies that reported consciously using elements of their culture in Strategy&'s 2013 Global Culture & Change Management Survey, 70 percent said their firms achieved sustainable improvement in organizational pride and emotional commitment. That compares with 35 percent for firms that didn't use culture as a lever. Although there is no magic formula, no brilliant algorithm, no numerical equation that will guarantee results, we have gleaned some valuable insights through decades of research and observation at dozens of enterprises, including some of the most successful companies in the world. By adopting the following principles, your organization can learn to deploy and improve its culture in a manner that will increase the odds of financial and operational success.

1. Work with and within your current cultural situations. Deeply embedded cultures cannot be replaced with simple upgrades, or even with major overhaul efforts. Nor can your culture be swapped out for a new one as though it were an operating system or a CPU. To a degree, your current cultural situation just is what it is - and it contains components that provide natural advantages to companies as well as components that may act as brakes. We've never seen a culture that is all bad, or one that is all good. To work with your culture effectively, therefore, you must understand it, recognize which traits are preeminent and consistent, and discern under what types of conditions these traits are likely to be a help or a hindrance. Put another way, there's both a yin and a yang to cultural traits.

For example, a European pharmaceutical company with a solid product development pipeline had a tendency to be inward-looking. It had great execution capabilities and an excellent record of compliance with regulators around the world. However, when new products were ready to be launched, the company had a hard time marketing them to physicians and healthcare providers. Rather than bemoaning the company's ingrained insularity - for example, its collective tendency to value the opinions of internal colleagues more than those of outside experts - the leaders decided to use this feature of its culture to its advantage. They set up a program through which employees were acknowledged and rewarded by colleagues for "going the extra mile" to support customers. By recognizing a new kind of internal authoritativeness, the company tapped a powerful emotional trigger already in place, and engendered a new (and strategically important) behavior in its sales force.

2. Change behaviors, and mind-sets will follow. It is a commonly held view that behavioral change follows mental shifts, as surely as night follows day. This is why organizations often try to change mind-sets (and ultimately behavior) by communicating values and putting them in glossy brochures. This technique didn't work well for Enron, where accounting fraud and scandal were part of everyday practice, even as the company's espoused values of excellence, respect, integrity, and communication were carved into the marble floor of the atrium of its global headquarters in Houston. In reality, culture is much more a matter of doing than of saying. Trying to change a culture purely through top-down messaging, training and development programs, and identifiable cues seldom changes people's beliefs or behaviors. In fact, neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting. Changes to key behaviors - changes that are tangible, actionable, repeatable, observable, and measurable - are thus a good place to start. Some good examples of behavior change, which we've observed at a number of companies, relate to empowerment (reducing the number of approvals needed for decisions), collaboration (setting up easy ways to convene joint projects), and interpersonal relations (devising mutually respectful practices for raising contentious issues or grievances).

Neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting.

A telecommunications company was seeking to improve its customer service. Rather than trying to influence mind-sets by, for example, posting signs urging employees to be polite to disgruntled customers, or having employees undergo empathy training, the company focused on what psychologists call a "precursor behavior" - a seemingly innocuous behavior that reliably precedes the occurrence of problem behavior. Leaders had noticed that poor teaming led to poor customer service, so the company rolled out a plan to encourage better and more effective teaming within call centers. To accomplish this, they set up regular design sessions for improving practices. When employees felt they were part of a happy team, and sensed a greater level of support from colleagues, they began treating their customers better.

In another example, a resources company in the Middle East was seeking to make its workplace safer. Rather than erect placards threatening workers with consequences, the company focused on a relatively basic precursor behavior: housekeeping. It organized a litter drive. Picking up trash as a team helped employees take greater pride in the workplace, which engendered a greater sense of care for fellow employees and made them more likely to speak up when they noticed an unsafe situation. Changed behavior, changed mind-set.

3. Focus on a critical few behaviors. Conventional wisdom advocates a comprehensive approach - everybody should change everything that's not perfect! But companies must be rigorously selective when it comes to picking behaviors. The key is to focus on what we call "the critical few," a small number of important behaviors that would have great impact if put into practice by a significant number of people. Discern a few things people do throughout the company that positively affect business performance - for example, ways of starting meetings or talking with customers. Make sure those are aligned with the company's overall strategy. Also check that people feel good about doing these things, so that you tap into emotional commitment. Then codify them: Translate those critical behaviors into simple, practical steps that people can take every day. Next, select groups of employees who are primed for these few behaviors, those who will respond strongly to the new behaviors and who are likely to implement and spread them.

At an Asian banking company, rapid inorganic growth had led to diverse ways of working across different units and geographies. To focus on improving teaming, customer outcomes, and the ability to realize synergies, the CEO and leadership embarked on a culture-led evolution program. They targeted just three critical behaviors: taking extra steps to delight customers, valuing performance over seniority, and backing up and supporting one another. They then converted these three general behaviors into specifics for each part of the company. Delighting customers, for instance, was translated into frontline staff collaborating with other colleagues to solve client problems and prioritizing the implementation of process improvements that affected customer outcomes. For all three behaviors, leadership recognized and celebrated examples in which people made an extraordinary effort. Senior leaders acted as role models, explicitly modeling these three new behaviors. The company also identified influential frontline, client-facing employees who could demonstrate these new behaviors in action.

4. Deploy your authentic informal leaders. Authority, which is conferred by a formal position, should not be confused with leadership. Leadership is a natural attribute, exercised and displayed informally without regard to title or position in the organizational chart. Because authentic informal leaders, who are found in every organization, are often not recognized as such, they are frequently overlooked and underused when it comes to driving culture. It is possible to identify such leaders through interviews, surveys, and tools such as organizational network analysis, which allow companies to construct maps of complex internal social relations by analyzing email statistics and meeting records. Once identified, these leaders can become powerful allies who can influence behavior through "showing by doing." In fact, when companies map out their organizations, they can identify leaders who exhibit different core leadership strengths (see "Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders").

Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders

Every organization has people who influence and energize others without relying on their title or formal position in the hierarchy to do so. We call them "authentic informal leaders." They are a powerful resource in spreading a critical few behaviors from the bottom up. Among the many types of informal leaders present in organizations, the following are seen most frequently.

Pride builders are master motivators of other people, and catalysts for improvement around them. Often found in the role of line manager, they understand the motivations of those with whom they work. They know how to foster a sense of excellence among others. They can be found at every level of a hierarchy; some of the most effective pride builders are close to the front line, where they can interact directly with customers as well as employees. Pride builders often have powerful insights about the culture and about what behaviors are likely to lead to improvement.

Exemplars are role models. They bring vital behaviors or skills to life, and others pay attention to them. They are well respected and are effective peer influencers in the middle and senior management cohorts.

Networkers are hubs of personal communication within the organization. They know many people, and communicate freely and openly with them. They serve as links among people who might not otherwise share information or ideas. If you want to see an idea travel virally through an enterprise, enlist your networkers.

Early adopters enthusiastically latch onto and experiment with new technologies, processes, and ways of working. Involve them in your performance pilots, or whenever you are trying to demonstrate impact quickly.

At one major oil company, an informal leader named Osama became known as the "turbo-collaborator." His role gave him very little formal influence. But when he began working at the refinery, he walked the plant with the engineers, maintenance technicians, and operators, and took copious notes. As a result, he knew everyone and developed relationships across disciplines. Whenever somebody wanted to know how the place really worked, they would speak to Osama - who would either have the answer in his notebook or know precisely the right person to ask. When the company formed a buddy program between operations and maintenance aimed at using greater collaboration to improve plant reliability, it knew it needed Osama at the heart of it. He connected people, defined templates to encourage collaboration, and captured success stories. Identifying, engaging, and nurturing such informal leaders allows companies to harness their talents and further the company's transformation efforts.

5. Don't let your formal leaders off the hook. Most organizations tend to shunt culture into the silo of human resources professionals. But leaders in all parts of the company are critical in safeguarding and championing desired behaviors, energizing personal feelings, and reinforcing cultural alignment. The signaling of emotional commitment sets the tone for others to follow. If staff members see a disconnect between the culture an organization promulgates and the one its formal leadership follows, they'll disengage quickly from the advertised culture and simply mimic their seniors' behavior. The people at the top have to demonstrate the change they want to see. Here, too, the critical few come into play. A handful of the right kind of leaders have to be on board to start the process.

When Jim Rogers was CEO of GE Motors in Fort Wayne, Ind., he became frustrated because his senior leadership group of more than 15 leaders seldom functioned together as a "real team." As described by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith in The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 1993), a real team is one with a high level of emotional commitment; the leadership role shifts easily among the members depending on their skills and experience and the challenges of the moment, rather than on any hierarchical positions. Team members hold one another accountable for the quality of their collective work. Interestingly, at GE Motors the senior leadership group members often demonstrated real team capabilities in running their individual business units and functions. So Rogers decided to find ways to break them into subteams of three or four members to address specific cross-organizational issues facing the larger group. Over time, he mixed the subgroupings to match emerging issues. By working in different subgroup settings, the executives developed camaraderie, which in turn improved the effectiveness of the group as a whole.

6. Link behaviors to business objectives. When people talk about feelings, motivations, and values - all of which are vital elements of strong cultures - the conversation can often veer into abstractions. It may then range far afield of what it takes to succeed in the market. Too many employees walk away from culture-focused town halls or values discussions wondering how the advice on how to be a better person actually translates into the work they do. To avoid this disconnect, offer tangible, well-defined examples of how cultural interventions lead to improved performance and financial outcomes. Select behaviors that are aimed specifically at improving business performance and can be measured over time.

An oil company's drive to reduce maintenance costs at an industrial installation highlights the importance of such an approach. The critical few behaviors included empowerment and good decision making. One of the company's exemplars (employees who lead by example) decided it would be a smart move to make costs visible to workers. So he placed price tags on various pieces of machinery. These cues inspired behavioral changes related to decisions about whether to repair or replace equipment. Workers and managers began to recommend fixing expensive equipment rather than replacing it. The company celebrated and publicized cost savings identified by employees. The behaviors led to a change in focus and mind-set. When an employee noticed that fans were cooling the machinery during the winter, he felt empowered to call it out, and ask whether it was necessary to do so. It turned out that it wasn't - and the company saved US$750,000 annually in power costs as a result.

7. Demonstrate impact quickly. We live in an age of notoriously short attention spans. That applies as much to organizational culture as it does to people's media consumption habits. When people hear about new high-profile initiatives and efforts, and then don't see any activity related to them for several months, they'll disengage and grow cynical. That's why it is extremely important to showcase the impact of cultural efforts on business results as quickly as possible. One effective method of doing so is to stage performance pilots - that is, high-profile demonstration projects. Pilots are relatively low-risk efforts that introduce specific behaviors that can then be evaluated and assessed. They often rely on a dashboard that defines desired impacts, the tactics used, and the specific metrics to be employed.

When Bell Canada first explored using new behaviors at the front line to improve its customer service and profitability, there were many more skeptics than believers within the leadership ranks. There simply wasn't any numerical proof that the tactics would work. So CEO Michael Sabia decided to set up a pilot test in a sales unit near Toronto. The sponsors of the test blocked out a tight time frame of eight months, and developed realistic ways of measuring behavior change, customer reactions, and actual sales and margin performance. Armed with positive results in these areas - a 29 percent increase in customer satisfaction in retail stores, a 31 percent increase in revenue per call at call centers - the company went on to accelerate the expansion of these efforts across the front line in different geographies, functions, and businesses.

8. Use cross-organizational methods to go viral. Ideas can spread virally across organizational departments and functions, as well as from the top down and from the bottom up. One powerful way to spread ideas is through social media: blogs, Facebook or LinkedIn posts, and tweets - not from senior management, but from some of the authentic informal leaders mentioned in Principle 4.

By now it is well established that social media can be more effective at spreading information, news, and music than traditional modes of distribution. The same holds with critical behaviors. People are often more receptive to changes in "the way we do things around here" when those changes are recommended or shared by friends, colleagues, and other associates. This kind of credible social proof is more compelling than similar testimonials from someone whose job it is to sell something.

Just as there is an art to making content go viral, there's a craft to making behavior go viral. For example, in a model that we have tested successfully in several situations, a company starts with a few carefully chosen groups of 12 to 15 informal leaders in three or four different parts of the business. After several weeks, an additional 10 to 15 groups of informal leaders are set up in every business unit. After about three months, the existing groups are encouraged to expand and bring in new people. After another three to six months have passed, the groups become more autonomous, allowed to control their own expansion. Meanwhile, the company facilitates connections among groups to share learning and insights. As behavior spreads, company leaders see increased performance as well as peer and leadership recognition.

9. Align programmatic efforts with behaviors. We've emphasized the role that informal leaders can play in helping ideas go viral. But it's also important to match the new cultural direction with existing ways of doing business. Informal mechanisms and cultural interventions must complement and integrate with the more common formal organization components, not work at cross-purposes. By providing the structure in which people work - through disciplines such as organization design, analytics, human resources, and lean process improvement - the formal organization provides a rational motivation for employee actions, while the informal organization enables the emotional commitment that characterizes peak performance.

The U.S. Marine Corps provides a classic example of integrating formal and informal leadership efforts. The "rule of three" dictates how the Marines design their organizations and projects and how they execute in a hierarchy. (Three squads form into one of three divisions, which form one of three battalions.) The formal leaders of those units are expected to know the intent of the officer two levels above them - and to call out any order or situation they perceive to be incoherent or in conflict with that intent. But there are also informal leaders: Each of the four members of a frontline rifle team is prepared (and expected) to take the lead whenever the formal leader is disabled or loses the high-ground position. This means that the informal leaders also need to know the intent of that officer two levels above. Integrating informal norms with the formal structures helps enable the timely battlefield adjustments that have served the Marine Corps well for more than 200 years.

10. Actively manage your cultural situation over time. Companies that have had great success working with culture - we call them "culture superstars" - actively monitor, manage, care for, and update their cultural forces. Why? As we noted at the outset, when aligned with strategic and operating priorities, culture can provide hidden sources of energy and motivation that can accelerate changes faster than formal processes and programs. Even if you have a highly effective culture today, it may not be good enough for tomorrow.

Southwest Airlines stands as an example of a battle-tested company in which culture has been managed over time. Famous for its long-term success in an industry where even the largest players routinely fail, Southwest for 40 years has been energized by a deep sense of pride among all employees. Southwest has found that constructing an environment that puts its employees first - above customers and owners - fosters a sense of emotional commitment and pride that delivers excellent customer service. But at Southwest, the work on culture is never completed. Just as the airline's strategy, tactics, and technologies have evolved to cope with a changing external environment, specific HR practices, including informal behaviors, have shifted over time.

Living in Your Culture

Although challenging, multidimensional, and often difficult to deal with, a company's cultural situation constitutes a powerful set of emotional resources. As is the case with other resources - human, technological, financial - it is incumbent upon leaders to strive to get the most value out of it.

To a degree, culture can be compared to natural forces such as winds and tides. These elements are there in the background, sometimes unnoticed, sometimes obvious. Endowed with immense power, they can waylay plans and inhibit progress. They can't really be tamed or fundamentally altered. But if you respect them and understand how to make the most of them, if you work with them and tap into their hidden power, they can become a source of energy and provide powerful assistance.

The best way to start is to ask yourself a series of questions. What are the most important emotional forces that determine what your people do? What few behavior changes would matter most in meeting strategic and operational imperatives? Who are the authentic informal leaders you can enlist? And what can you and your fellow senior leaders do differently to signal and reinforce those critical behaviors?

Of course, you shouldn't plan for dramatic results overnight. Expect an evolution, not a revolution. One of the challenges of working with culture is that, as we've noted, it changes gradually - often too slowly for leaders facing fast-moving competitors. That's the bad news. The good news? If you approach culture with respect and intelligence, as a milieu in which you and your enterprise live, you can use it to accelerate your competitive momentum. There's no better time than the present to start.

Reprint No. 16105

Author profiles:

Jon Katzenbach is an acclaimed advisor to executives for Strategy&, PwC's strategy consulting group. He is a managing director with PwC US, based in New York, and founder of the Katzenbach Center, Strategy&'s global institute on organizational culture and leadership. He is a best-selling author on organizational culture, leadership, and teaming; his books include The Wisdom of Teams (with Douglas K. Smith; Harvard Business School Press, 1993) and Leading Outside the Lines (with Zia Khan; Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Carolin Oelschlegel is a director of the Katzenbach Center for Strategy&. She leads the global operations of the center and advises clients around the world on culture and leadership topics. Based in San Francisco, she is a director with PwC US.

James Thomas is a thought leader in organizational culture with Strategy&. He is the Middle East lead of the Katzenbach Center and an expert in culture and organizational topics. Based in Dubai, he is a partner with PwC Middle East.

Also contributing to this article were Strategy& specialists Varya Davidson (partner with PwC Australia), Kenji Mitsui (partner with PwC Japan), Henning Hagen and Rutger von Post (principals with PwC US), and Shona Especkerman (senior manager with PwC Malaysia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jon Katzenbach, Carolin Oelschlegel, and James Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companies can tap their natural advantage when they focus on changing a few important behaviors, enlist informal leaders, and harness the power of employees' emotions.

# data[].attributes.headline
God artikel omkring Scheins Kultur teori

# data[].attributes.subject
God artikel omkring Scheins Kultur teori

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Culture is a messy term. In 1952, two Academics, Kroeber and Kluckhohn, completed a comprehensive review of the term and found that by then there were over 134 definitions.

As Kroeber and Kluckhohn explored the history of the word, they found all roads pointing to Germany, where the word was emerging as "cultur":

Kant, for instance, like most of his contemporaries, still spells the word Cultur, but uses it repeatedly, always with the meaning of cultivating or being cultured

It wasn't until the late 1800's that the word started to form into the modern form of the word, adopted by Anthropologists and other academics who were studying foreign cultures.

Sir Edward Tyler's book Primitive Culture from 1870 is often marked as a shift toward the modern definition:

that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society

By the 1950s there were over 100 definitions of the word and that was before organizations started using the term.

In the 1980s, Edgar Schein's research expanded the scope of the world to modern organizations and the way we talk about companies has never been the same.

"Culture" Is Confusing

In my ten years working in strategy consulting, there was no concept that fascinated me more than "corporate culture."

As I explored the topic and related research my fascination shifted from the topic to the fact that almost every company talked about their culture but rarely employed a single person within the organization that understood what culture was, how it was formed and shaped, and how it related to the survival of the company.

Even as HR has been elevated to the C-Level, most "people leaders" remain relatively oblivious to powerful ideas about organizational culture formed in the 1980s. This is both the result of our obsession with the latest and greatest ideas and the lack of belief in the value of human resources by other functions and leaders.

It is also the result of a lack of coherence around a set of norms for what a "serious" human resources professional might look like. Part of this is excused by the fact that human resources emerged as a reaction to other trends such as the disappearance of unions and the need for companies to manage benefits and even in a darker way, as the way Stalin thought about centralized planning and productivity in the gulags of Russia.

As human resources moves beyond the history of "personnel management" and limited views of human capacity, it must begin to take itself more seriously. Just as advertisers likely would look down upon anyone that had failed to read Ogilvy, it should be seen as a similar failure to not have read Schein.

In the following essay, I hope to go deeper into some of Schein's ideas and give you a framework and lens of thinking about organizational culture.

This essay is a perfect starting point for thinking about how Schein's work can apply to your company or even better still (as you will see) thinking about how to shape your culture from the founding or early stages of your company. We'll walk through the following:

1. How culture arises

2. Why the idea of a unified, single culture is wrong

3. A framework for thinking about culture (hint: it's not actually a pyramid)

4. The two factors that shape how a culture solidified

5. The role of anxiety in learning and culture

6. The stages of cultural development

7. Identifying a "strong" culture

8. How to assess culture in your own company

How does organizational culture arise?

Edgar Schein's 1984 article " Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture " should be considered a must-read for anyone in the human resources function.

While I don't suggest that his ideas are comprehensive, Schein is the best starting point for making sense of what we mean by culture in a business organization. Many other ideas such as Chaos Theory add much-needed nuance to modeling organizations, but Schein argues that we need to deeply understand a culture if we wish to shape it.

We need to not only understand what culture is but how it arises:

Many definitions simply settle for the notion that culture is a set of shared meanings that make it possible for members of a group to interpret and act upon their environment. I believe we must go beyond this definition: even if we knew an organization well enough to live in it, we would not necessarily know how its culture arose, how it came to be what it is, or how it could be changed if organizational survival were at stake.

Schein gives us his definition of organizational culture at the start:

Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

Culture Is Found In Groups

It is common for companies to claim a collective company culture, but this is not a good way for thinking about culture. While there may be common cultural elements across a large company, the culture that we care about is found in specific teams of individuals.

He finds the group or team element important enough to define it as a "set of people:

1. who have been together long enough to have shared significant problems,

2. who have had opportunities to solve those problems and to observe the effects of their solutions

3. who have taken in new members. A group's culture cannot be determined unless there is such a definable set of people with a shared history."

Schein saw many people define a group of people based on a certain culture and felt that was a logical mistake.

Culture is a result of the behavior of individuals and not the other way around. There is no culture unless a group "owns" it.

Modeling Organizational Culture

Often shown as a pyramid, Schein's original model was presented as three different layers. Cultural concepts can move between these two layers over time and are associated with different levels of awareness within the organization.

The three levels:

1. Artifacts: These are the "visible" symbols of the culture. It can include anything from clothing styles to posters on the wall to the volume of speech. Even if not understood, the artifacts that last are typically deeply tied to the underlying culture.

2. Values: These are the "espoused" values - often found on company websites and also the area which has the greatest chance of being disconnected from reality.

3. Basic Assumptions: These are the beliefs that people use to make day-to-day decisions within an organization. For example, an assumption may be that "it is best to speak up when I have a good idea." Judging the assumptions and trade-offs people make on a day-to-day basis is often the quickest way to understand the "real" culture.

One of the biggest traps when analyzing a company is to look at the "artifacts" and make assumptions about the culture. You may walk into an office that has ping pong and foosball tables and think the culture embraces having fun during the workday. If you spent a week at the company and realize that everyone assumes you should wait until 6 pm to play any games, you'd realize the culture is something a bit different than your initial assessment.

In Schein's framing, to look at the artifacts is to avoid looking at the "cultural essence" of the company.

How A Culture Solidifies

Schein said that the culture of a company emerges and solidifies in two ways:

1. Positive problem-solving processes

2. Anxiety avoidance

The first category is really how the company solves and reacts to problems. This is a big factor early in a company's history as the company will typically face many challenges. How it solves those challenges will have a big impact on the future cultural DNA of the company.

This is mostly a good thing and if a company continues to grow, it is likely because its default way of thinking about and solving problems is scalable to larger and larger issues.

However, there is also a shadow side that emerges early in a company's growth. This is what Schein calls "anxiety avoidance," or behaviors that help groups to minimize anxiety. Common ways this shows up in a company is through the desire for order, consistency, and control, or ways of relating to others that minimize conflict.

Schein says that the behaviors that result from anxiety avoidance can be the "most stable":

once a response is learned because it successfully avoids anxiety, it is likely to be repeated indefinitely

One common but frustrating behavior we see in companies is to have a "default to highest-ranking person's opinion" assumption. This may have helped the company make decisions and avoid internal conflict early on in the company's fight for survival but it may not be beneficial as the company scales.

To understand Schein and his model of corporate culture, it's worth going a bit deeper into his ideas of anxiety and learning.

In the early 1990's there was a lot of research on "learning organizations" and identifying ones that were better at adapting to change. I still think this is some of the best thinking that's come out of organizational studies, but seems to have been lost to a lot of the energy around the internet and technology that took the business world in a more exciting direction.

Schein sees anxiety as a fundamental component of learning.

Anxiety inhibits learning, but anxiety is also necessary if learning is going to happen at all.

He deems these two kinds of anxieties "learning anxiety" and "survival anxiety." Only survival anxiety can help us overcome learning anxiety.

"Learning anxiety" is familiar to most of us. When we start learning something new it brings up feelings of being an impostor and forces a reckoning with the fact that we may not have that much competence in a specific domain.

Further, learning risks us being pushed out of groups that matter to us. Anyone who has proposed a new way of doing something at work and has experienced a disproportionate response knows what I mean. It's not that the idea is bad, people just don't want to risk not belonging.

Schein believed the only way to overcome this tension was through "survival anxiety." This is the feeling that if we don't learn something new, we will not survive.

Threading the needle of creating survival anxiety that helps people orient in the right direction without creating too much fear is hard:

Most companies prefer to increase survival anxiety because that's the easier way to go. And that, I think, is where organizations have it absolutely wrong. To the extent that our present managerial practices emphasize the stick over the carrot, companies are building in strong resistance to learning.

Shifting this dynamic is hard, if not impossible for a company with a solidified culture. It would involve leaders dramatically changing their own behavior before implementing any formal policies.

Schein is typically skeptical of managerial attempts to impose learning and finds many attempts end up being coercive:

Managers have to realize that it's important not to put a value on learning per se because doing that can be dysfunctional. Consider something as ostensibly innocuous as the learning that is supposed to take place at the off-site meetings and Outward Bound programs that many companies now sponsor. These companies force their employees to climb trees all day and then reveal personal stuff to one another at night.

So yes, the group has learned something. But that learning was coerced, and the resulting new team may be dysfunctional because its members are not necessarily being true to themselves. In fact, there are occasions when individuals do the organization a huge favor by refusing to learn.

Schein is telling us that if an organization aspires to be an adaptive learning organization, it needs to have the humility to realize that it won't be able to plan learning for its people.

Learning is not a top-down directive. It's a messy process that may not take you in the expected directions.

Schein says that learning and culture go hand in hand and are continuously being shaped:

culture is perpetually being formed in the sense that there is constantly some sort of learning going on about how to relate to the environment and manage internal affairs

However, the initial founding and early stages of a company are pivotal. During the period the behaviors and norms established by the company and especially the founder and key leaders will set the tone for the culture of the company for years.

Schein described this period as "clarification, articulation, and elaboration."

At a certain point, the company reaches mid-life. This is when the company has stabilized with a number of learned "anxiety avoidance" and problem-solving behaviors.

At this stage, new employees join the company without a deeper understanding of the context of how the culture was formed. It is also at this stage that understanding that context is crucial if you wish to make a change.

In order to shift the culture, you will need to deeply understand what makes the culture stable and why. Schein notes that this period brings up a stressful strategic decision for many company leaders:

Whether the organization needs to enhance the diversity to remain ﬂexible in the face of environmental turbulence, or to create a more homogeneous "strong" culture (as some advocate] becomes one of the toughest strategy decisions management confronts, especially if senior management is unaware of some of its own cultural assumptions

Finally, the culture reaches maturity or decline because either the market the company competes in is mature or the culture has become "excessively stable." At this point, change may be all but impossible because of how deeply people are attached to the underlying assumptions

Such managed change will always be a painful process and will elicit strong resistance. Moreover, change may not even be possible without replacing the large numbers of people who wish to hold on to all of the original culture.

If we can define a culture of a company we can also define how strong the culture is. Schein's definition of cultural strength is as follows:

The "strength" or "amount" of culture can be defined in terms of (1) the homogeneity and stability of group membership and (2) the length and intensity of shared experiences of the group.

If a company has had to navigate many crises for survival, the company will likely have formed a strong culture. Alternatively, if the company has not been around long and has had a relatively easy ride to success, it may have a weaker culture. This can set the company up for disaster when they scale and face their first large challenge.

It is important to realize that cultural strength does not mean effectiveness. You can have a strong culture that doesn't serve you anymore. Think about Kodak which was known for having an incredible branding and marketing culture, but failed to adapt to the shifting digital photography landscape.

I've also written about my experience at McKinsey which I believe has both a strong and effective culture. At McKinsey, the first week of training gives us a clue of how seriously they take the culture.

Instead of learning tools and ways of working, we were taught the history of the firm, given a book by Marvin Bower, one of the most influential people in the firm's history, and shown videos of people talking about the firm values. These values were then reinforced by sharing stories and direct references in the work.

McKinsey's strong culture enables it to be incredibly successful in the current market environment, but that same culture means it is more at risk than other firms if that environment ever shifts.

Assessing Culture In Practice

Even Schein admits that "Organizational culture as defined here is difficult to study." At its core, it is still about uncovering the underlying assumptions of behavior.

In my own experience, there is no substitute for time spent within the culture and a deep examination of the behaviors, practices, and beliefs. This means engaging in in-depth interviews, surveys, and observation at all levels of the organization.

Schein gives us four lenses to look at culture:

Four Ways To Assess Culture (Schein, 1984)
1. Analyzing the process and content of socialization of new members

2. Analyzing responses to critical incidents in the organization's history

3. Analyzing beliefs values and assumptions of culture creators or carriers

4. Jointly exploring and analyzing with insiders the anomalies or puzzling features observed or uncovered in interviews

Taking a similar approach, I worked with a smaller company on a project to help them understand their own culture. It was surprising to me how everyone had a bit of understanding of the culture, but not a comprehensive view, and all struggled to answer the question "what is the culture?"

Instead, I asked questions like:

What is a belief that people seem to hold here?

What is a way of behaving that is rewarded here?

How do people solve problems, especially when stressed?

What is something that an outsider might say about your team?

From there you can start to piece together some of the common assumptions and begin to test them with people: "it seems that when X happens, people do Y, is this right?"

Through interviews and surveys, we identified six cultural characteristics and tried to define them as specifically as possible. Each of these was backed by a story or specific evidence. For example, "we do the right thing for clients even at short-term financial cost" was not just a boilerplate statement, it was actually backed up with several stories that "proved" the point.

This is much harder in large organizations, but you can still use the same general approach. In my time working at consulting firms, we would work with thousand-person organizations that may not have a single strong culture, but often have a few elements which seem to have been deeply embedded in the assumptions of most employees.

The danger is when company leaders want to identify a comprehensive culture for a large-scale organization. Instead, these leaders are usually better suited if they identify one or two values that do resonate as true for most employees and then embrace the fact that there will be several sub-cultures across the organization that cannot be controlled in a top-down manner.

No matter the level of the organization or type of organization, the best lens to understand culture is to understand the underlying mythos or stories of the firm. What are the stories you were told when you started? What are the stories that people tell you about how things are? How do you solve problems here?
If you're interested in more ideas around culture, my friend Andrew runs a great site called Curious Lion - one of my favorite articles is his summary of Peter Senge's book The Fifth Discipline.
Just published! The Pathless Path is Paul's book about walking away from a "perfect" job with a promising future and starting over again. Through painstaking experiments, living in different countries, and a deep dive into the history of our work beliefs, Paul pieces together a set of ideas and principles that guide him from unfulfilled and burned out to what he calls "the pathless path" - a new story for thinking about work in our lives. Learn More & Buy The Book Here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edgar Schein - Organizational Culture: Artifacts, Values & Assumptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Culture is a messy term. In 1952, two Academics, Kroeber and Kluckhohn, completed a comprehensive review of the term and found that by then there were over 134 definitions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Edmondson understreker at utfordringen i mange store organisasjoner kan være at den enkelte ansatte kanskje ikke er sikker på om deres bidrag i det hele tatt betyr noe og om det kan utgjøre en forskjell.

- De er usikre på om det er noen vits i å mene noe og engasjere seg, siden de bare er en liten brikke i et stort maskineri. Men vi har utallige eksempler på at enkeltmennesket kan utgjøre en stor forskjell i store organisasjoner, på godt og vondt. På et sykehus med 20 000 ansatte i Minneapolis har vi en kreftsykepleier som kom med en idé om å skape "safety action teams" som skulle identifisere potensielle risikoer ved kreftavdelingen. De møtes nå hver fredag og har avverget mange hendelser, takket være ideen fra denne ene sykepleieren. Hun utgjorde en forskjell ved å tørre å lufte tankene sine.

- På den andre siden har du ingeniøren ved dieselbilavdelingen hos Volkswagen, som fikk beskjed fra sjefen sin og sjefen over ham igjen, at en bestemt bilmotoren måtte bestå testene og bli godkjent i henhold til Californias utslippsstandarder. Denne ingeniøren visste at det ikke var en sjans i havet for at motoren ville oppfylle kriteriene og bestå testene. Teknologien var ikke god nok. Men han utviklet en programvare som får det til å se ut som om motoren fungerer på en annen måte enn den faktisk gjør, slik at den kunne bli godkjent. Som alle forsøk på bedrageri ble også dette til slutt oppdaget, og det ble en omdømmeskandale av dimensjoner for Volkswagen som også opplevde store økonomiske tap som følge av skandalen.

- Denne ingeniøren var smart, utdannet og hadde kunnskapen til å se at dette ikke ville fungere. Men han hadde for mye frykt til å si sannheten og stå opp for den. Man kan altså utgjøre en stor forskjell selv i store organisasjoner, både på godt og vondt. Ett tegn på at alarmklokkene bør gå av i hodet ditt, er hvis en avdeling bare kommer med gode nyheter og alt er veldig positivt. Det bør vekke mistanke om at noe kanskje ikke er slik det skal, avslutter Edmondson.

Tre strategier for å skape en fryktløs organisasjon

Dette er strategier som alle i bedriften kan bruke, både medarbeidere og ledere.
1. Legg til rette for psykologisk trygghet
Minn folk på bedriftens felles formål - hvorfor dere er her. Folk må ha en motivasjon som er større enn det å gå på jobb og få betalt for det. La folk forstå at de kan utgjøre en forskjell, og bidra til noe som er større enn dem selv.

Du må også hjelpe folk å forstå hva vi står ovenfor i en kompleks, usikker verden. Ingen har en krystallkule. Vi prøver sammen å skape noe som betyr noe, og alle må bidra ved å gjøre så godt de kan - ved å ta litt risiko, tørre å si fra.
2. Inviter til engasjement
Du må stille gode spørsmål på en proaktiv måte. "Hva synes du om dette?", "Hvilke ideer har du på dette?", "Hva er dine ærlige tanker om hvordan det går?" osv. Folk vil gjerne fremstå som bra, og den instinktive måten er å gjøre det på, er å ikke si noe. Men når du får direkte spørsmål, vil det å ikke svare, gjøre at du ikke fremstår som bra. Hvis dere har møter for å diskutere ting, gjør det klart hvorfor dere møtes og hva dere ønsker å oppnå.
3. Svar på en produktiv måte
Hva om du sier noe jeg ikke liker? Svar likevel produktivt. "Jeg har ikke tenkt på det på den måten. Kan du forklare litt mer?", eller "Jeg har tenkt på det samme, og dette er det jeg er bekymret for". Vi må være ærlig, men på en respektfull måte.

TEKST: INGER LISE KONTOCHRISTOS FOTO: HARVARD UNIVERSITY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psykologisk trygghet er avgjørende for din bedrift

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Psykologisk trygghet er en fundamental kompetanse for fremtidens virksomheter. Når så mye handler om innovasjon, læring og engasjement er det viktig å beholde og dyrke talentfulle medarbeidere - men enda viktigere at de er i stand til å uttrykke sine

# data[].attributes.body
Amerikansk ubåds kaptajn som forandre en "taber" kultur på 6-12 mdr. til vinderkultur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is leadership? - With David Marquet

# data[].attributes.headline
LEAN i Danske Kommuner - hvidbog fra Væksthus for Ledelse

# data[].attributes.subject
LEAN i Danske Kommuner - hvidbog fra Væksthus for Ledelse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Først kaffe, så pleje og omsorg."

Mottoet fra den hollandske leverandør af hjemmesygepleje og hjemmepleje, Buurtzorg, udtrykker i en nøddeskal organisationens overordnede mål om, at hjælpen skal tage afsæt i borgerens ønsker og ressourcer.

Samtidig skal borgerne møde færre forskellige medarbejdere, og det skal gøre dem mere tilfredse med den hjælp, som de modtager.

Midlet er en række selvstyrende teams med udstrakt ansvar for (selv)ledelse og organisering internt. Samtidig har Buurtzorg skåret ned på ledelse, administration og dokumentation - både som følge af en bevidst filosofi og som følge af det vidstrakte ansvar, der ligger i de selvstændige teams.

Non-profit organisationen Buurtzorg har på blot ti år oplevet en succes, der har givet dem en dominerende position på det hollandske marked for hjemmesygepleje.

Udfordrer ældreplejens organisering

De seneste år er der også kommet international opmærksomhed på mulighederne for at overføre modellen til andre lande og kontekster.

En række danske kommuner har de seneste år været på Buurtzorg-studieture, men indtil videre er Ikast-Brande Kommune den eneste, der har valgt at sætte et konkret forsøg i gang.

Det afspejler, at mens mange kommuner og aktører på den ene side forholder sig positivt til Buurtzorgs idealer om afbureaukratisering, personkontinuitet og øget borgerinvolvering, har de fleste også svært ved at se, hvordan organiseringen med selvstyrende teams kan passes ind i en dansk kontekst, hvor ældreplejens organisationer er vidt forgrenede, hierarkiske og politisk styrede.

Buurtzorg udfordrer med andre ord den danske måde at organisere ældreplejen på, og derfor er der også delte meninger om modellens relevans og anvendelighed i en dansk kontekst.

Hvad kan vi lære af internationale erfaringer?

Debatten om Buurtzorg har indtil nu båret præg af, at der har manglet et fælles vidensgrundlag at basere dialogen på.

Vive har derfor udarbejdet en rapport, der giver overblik over den tilgængelige viden om Buurtzorgs organisering og resultater i en international kontekst samt de muligheder og udfordringer, der vil være ved at introducere modellen i den dansk ældrepleje.

Gennemgangen af internationale erfaringer viser, at der er overraskende lidt tilgængelig viden om, hvordan Buurtzorg kan fungere i sundhedsvæsener, hvis struktur og organisering minder om den danske.

De få evalueringer af Buurtzorg-afprøvninger, der er fundet, giver på den ene side indikationer på, at offentlig hjemmesygepleje og hjemmepleje leveret med afsæt i Buurtzorgs principper understøtter de faglige og borgerrettede målsætninger.

På den anden side fremgår det også, at afprøvningerne befinder sig på et meget indledende stadie, samt at det har været svært at introducere Buurtzorgs selvstyrende grupper som afgrænsede enheder i den eksisterende organisering.

Beslutningstagere skal være opmærksomme

At indføre Buurtzorg i en dansk kontekst er derfor en udviklingsopgave med mange ubekendte.

Hvis danske beslutningstagere på nationalt eller lokalt niveau ønsker at afprøve af Buurtzorg, er det vigtigt, at de er opmærksomme på en række væsentlige forskelle på Buurtzorgs historik og kontekst i forhold til den danske ældrepleje:

Buurtzorg er udviklet af en driftig og karismatisk grundlægger, der fra starten har haft et tæt samarbejde med eksterne eksperter, som i hele processen har tegnet organisationen indad- og udadtil.

Det udgangspunkt vil være vanskeligt at genskabe i en dansk kontekst, hvor Buurtzorg vil komme som et alternativ til den eksisterende måde at gøre tingene på.

Derfor vil det være vigtigt, at eventuelle danske afprøvninger har en solid ledelsesmæssig og politisk forankring i de involverede organisationer, samt at der er en klar vision for, hvorfor afprøvningen sættes i gang.

De juridiske og økonomiske rammer er anderledes

Buurtzorg-modellen er udviklet på et reguleret, men konkurrencepræget marked med mange aktører, og markedsmekanismer, der har muliggjort Buurtzorgs vækst og resultater.

I Danmark har vi en langt lavere grad af markedsorientering i ældreplejen, så hvis private udbydere skal byde ind, vil det være vigtigt at afklare de juridiske og økonomiske rammer, herunder hvordan afregning og kvalitetssikring håndteres i et set-up, hvor udførelsen af hjemmepleje og sygeplejeydelser er integreret.

Buurtzorgs medarbejdere har i Holland selv opsøgt organisationen og dens måde at arbejde på, hvormed de i udgangspunktet har et stort ejerskab til organisationens værdier.

Erfaringerne fra de få internationale afprøvninger viser, at sygeplejersker, som er uddannet og formet i den eksisterende organisation, ikke per automatik tiltrækkes og trives i et selvstyrende team med lav grad af specialisering, fladt fagligt hierarki og en bred opgaveportefølje, der inkluderer "hjemmeplejeopgaver".

Derfor vil det i en dansk kontekst være vigtigt med en grundig forventningsafstemning, faglige udviklingsmuligheder og ikke mindst et eksplicit fokus på oplæring i de kompetencer og samarbejdsrelationer, der kræves i et selvstyrende team.

Rutiner skal understøtte den valgte organisering

Buurtzorg har udviklet sin egen it-platform, der understøtter organisationen og det faglige arbejde i ét sammenhængende system.

De selvstyrende teams og de enkelte medarbejdere bliver desuden løbende monitoreret og målt på produktivitet, økonomi og kvalitet. I tilfælde af vedvarende udfordringer bliver teamet lukket.

De internationale erfaringer viser tydeligt, hvor udfordrende og ineffektivt arbejdet i selvstyrende teams bliver, hvis it-platform og dokumentationsredskaber ikke matcher organiseringen, og medarbejderne dermed skal planlægge og dobbeltdokumentere deres arbejde i flere forskellige systemer.

Ved afprøvning i en dansk sammenhæng vil det derfor være vigtigt med en it-platform, som understøtter den valgte organisering.

Forsøg i Ikast-Brande kan levere manglende viden

Den foreløbig eneste danske afprøvning af Buurtzorg-modellen er Ikast-Brande Kommunes pilotafprøvning, der løber frem til 2022.

Afprøvningen er designet på en unik måde, der gør den velegnet til at høste vigtige erfaringer om at udbrede modellen til andre lande og systemer.

Designet er tro over for Buurtzorgs samlede organisation og forretningsmodel. Samtidig har man rekrutteret erfarne medarbejdere, der ønsker at afprøve Buurtzorgs arbejdsform.

Dertil kommer et fokus på at komme hurtigt i stabil drift med en længerevarende tidshorisont, og endelig indeholder afprøvningen en systematisk evaluering.

Dermed har pilotprojektet i Ikast-Brande Kommune potentiale til at levere en væsentlig del af den viden, der aktuelt mangler om Buurtzorg-modellen i en dansk kontekst, hvis det lykkes at gennemføre og evaluere projektet som planlagt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Buurtzorg-modellen er en udvik­lingsopgave med mange ubekendte

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Først kaffe, så pleje og omsorg." Mottoet fra den hollandske leverandør af hjemmesygepleje og hjemmepleje, Buurtzorg, udtrykker i en nøddeskal organisationens overordnede mål om, at hjælpen skal tage afsæt i borgerens ønsker og ressourcer. Samtidig skal borgerne møde færre forskellige medarbejdere, og det skal gøre dem mere tilfredse med den hjælp, som de modtager.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
VIVEs daglige ledelse består af:

Lotte Jensen, direktør

Mette Deding, vicedirektør

Torben Tranæs, forskningsdirektør

Carsten Strømbæk Pedersen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Børn og Uddannelse

Hans Hummelgaard, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Effektmåling

Kræn Blume Jensen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Social

Lisbeth Pedersen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Arbejde og Ældre

Mads Leth Jakobsen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Styring og Ledelse

Pia Kürstein Kjellberg, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Sundhed

Hanne Friis Kaas, økonomi- og administrationschef

Karen Tidemann, Kommunikationschef

Hanne Søndergaard Pedersen, tilbuds- og projektudviklingschef

Se oversigt over VIVEs organisation nederst på siden.

Forskning og analyse er på VIVE organiseret i seks afdelinger:

VIVE Arbejde og Ældre

Afdelingen beskæftiger sig med to faglige områder: beskæftigelse & integration samt ældreområdet. Inden for beskæftigelse og integration har afdelingen bl.a. fokus på, hvordan arbejdsmarkedet fungerer, og hvordan beskæftigelsesindsatser implementeres og virker. Desuden er der fokus på boligsociale indsatser og problemstillinger, der vedrører etniske minoriteters velfærd og inklusion i det danske samfund. Inden for ældreområdet har afdelingen bl.a. fokus på samfundsmæssige udfordringer i det aldrende samfund, ældres levevilkår og indretningen af ældreplejen.

VIVE Børn og Uddannelse

Afdelingen har to hovedområder: Børn og unges udsathed samt dagtilbud og uddannelse for både børn, unge og voksne. I forhold til udsathed er der for eksempel fokus på forebyggende indsatser og anbringelser. På dagtilbuds- og uddannelsesområdet er der for eksempel fokus på børn og unges læring og trivsel samt overgangsproblematikker. Afdelingen har også fokus på, hvordan børn og unge med særlige behov - herunder læringsudfordringer eller psykisk mistrivsel - klarer sig i uddannelsessystemet. Endelig beskæftiger VIVE Børn og Uddannelse sig med organisering og ledelse på social-, dagtilbuds- og uddannelsesområdet, implementering og evaluering af reformer og specifikke indsatser samt effekter af disse.

VIVE Effektmåling

Afdelingen har fokus på hvilke offentlige indsatser, der giver størst kvalitet for borgerne set i forhold til omkostningerne. Afdelingen rummer et stærkt analyse- og forskningsmiljø, hvor medarbejderne anvender avancerede statistiske analysemetoder til effektmålinger og samfundsøkonomiske analyser, herunder cost-benefit-analyser og forskellige metoder til måling af kvalitet og præferencer. Afdelingen er desuden vært for Campbell og gennemfører systematiske forskningsoversigter (reviews) over effektmåling af offentlige indsatser, og den samarbejder tæt med VIVEs øvrige afdelinger inden for deres respektive emnefelter.

VIVE Social

Afdelingen har fokus på socialpolitik, sociale indsatser og sociale forhold for hele befolkningen. Den beskæftiger sig med borgernes levevilkår og med udsatte grupper i særdeleshed, og temaerne er bl.a. social marginalisering, social stratifikation og fattigdom. Afdelingen ser på, hvordan kommuner og praktikere omsætter socialpolitikken til konkret praksis, og hvordan konkrete indsatser virker. Endvidere har afdelingen fokus på familiepolitik, herunder skilsmisse- og orlovsproblematikker og familie-og arbejdslivsrelationer.

VIVE Styring og Ledelse

Afdelingen beskæftiger sig med styring, ledelse, organisering og produktivitet i den offentlige sektor - på det nationale, regionale og kommunale niveau. Den undersøger ressourceudnyttelsen i den offentlige sektor og ser på, hvilken effekt styrings- og ledelsesmodeller har på kvalitet, resultater og udgifter samt på medarbejdernes motivation og præstationer. Afdelingen har bl.a. fokus på økonomistyring, tværsektorielle løsninger, offentlig-privat samspil, resultatstyring og implementering. Afdelingen er desuden vært for ECO-nøgletal, og den samarbejder tæt med VIVEs øvrige afdelinger inden for deres respektive emnefelter.

VIVE Sundhed

Afdelingen beskæftiger sig med borgernes fysiske og psykiske sundhed, og de institutioner, organisationer og interventioner, der er rettet mod at skabe en bedre sundhed i befolkningen. Afdelingen har fokus på alle målgrupper - fra de endnu ufødte over børn, unge og voksne til den ældre medicinske patient. Der er fokus på de organisationer og institutioner, der arbejder med at skabe en bedre sundhed, fx sygehuse, almen praksis, frivillige organisationer og kommuner. Afdelingen ser også på krydsfeltet mellem sundhed og sociale indsatser, samt på samspillet til beskæftigelsesområdet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VIVEs daglige ledelse består af: Lotte Jensen, direktør Mette Deding, vicedirektør Torben Tranæs, forskningsdirektør Carsten Strømbæk Pedersen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Børn og Uddannelse Hans Hummelgaard, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Effektmåling Kræn Blume Jensen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Social Lisbeth Pedersen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Arbejde og Ældre Mads Leth Jakobsen, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Styring og Ledelse Pia Kürstein Kjellberg, forsknings- og analysechef for VIVE Sundhed Hanne Friis Kaas, økonomi- og administrationschef Karen Tidemann, Kommunikationschef Hanne Søndergaard Pedersen, tilbuds- og projektudviklingschef Se oversigt over VIVEs organisation nederst på siden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive Summary

As the Covid-19 pandemic shakes the global economy and disrupts the way we live, work, and conduct business, leaders are scrambling to manage the immediate fallout. But, as history proves, it's also necessary to prepare for what's next.

The authors suggest (1) dedicating about 10 to 20 percent of your time on a weekly basis over the next few months to exploring and envisioning where you want your organization to be when the crisis passes; (2) laying out a path from your long-term aspiration to the mid-term (your post-crisis focal point), and from there to today, while reverse-engineering a series of benchmarks and milestones at regular intervals along the way; (3) pivoting and learning along the way; and (4) rallying your team around your vision.

David Malan/Getty Images

We've made our coronavirus coverage free for all readers. To get all of HBR's content delivered to your inbox, sign up for the Daily Alert newsletter.

As the Covid-19 pandemic shakes the global economy and disrupts the way we live, work, and conduct business, leaders are scrambling to manage the immediate fallout. But, as history proves, it's also necessary to prepare for what's next. Visionary leaders like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela didn't simply react to the most imminent threats confronting them; they also looked beyond the dark horizon. They were guided - and guided their people in turn - by their vision for a better future, after those challenges had been overcome.

Vision is especially urgent during a crisis as global and systematic as this one. Inflections that you might have had five years to anticipate in a normal environment might unfold in a matter of weeks or months. Trend lines, such as those towards telecommuting, telemedicine, online shopping, and digital media consumption, are suddenly much steeper. Global supply chains are broken. Healthcare delivery is likely to change in ways that will make the last decade's adoption of Obamacare look trivial. Many of your B2B customers may be shut down; millions of consumers are out of work. Some of the fundamental assumptions underlying your current business model may have been (or may soon be) upended.

In short, the business environment that you land in when the pandemic comes to an end - which could be one to two years from now - may be very different from what it was before the crisis began.

You need to begin preparing for it now. And to do that right, you need to have a longer-term vision of what you aspire to become in five or even 10 years - a north star that will focus and help shape your thinking about the short and the mid-term. It may be hard to see now, but the seeds of the next great growth industries are taking root now. Think back to Apple 20 years ago, which famously envisioned and started to plan for the iPod and iPhone as its computer business came under enormous strain during the dotcom crash.

Of course, nobody has a crystal ball (even Steve Jobs didn't); if such a thing existed, we wouldn't be in this fix. But while you can't predict what's coming with perfect certainty, you can develop much more clarity than you might imagine about what you could and should become, create a plan to live into it, and then set it into motion. Here's our process, as detailed in our new book Lead from the Future, for doing exactly that.

Spend time envisioning your future. Ideally, you should dedicate about 10 to 20 percent of your time on a weekly basis over the next few months to exploring and envisioning where you want your organization to be when the crisis passes. This aspiration, of course, should be consistent with your longer-term vision.

Given the urgent demands of the present, some leaders may be tempted to delegate the responsibility for this kind of thinking to others, but it is critical that the CEO, CFO, CSO, and other key line leaders - the people who sign off on major resource allocation decisions - do this work themselves.

Interrogate what is likely to change about your customers, markets, and operating environment, and what isn't. Focus on what your customers will require, how you'll meet their new and evolving demands, the resonance of your products and services, and your overall capabilities.

Ask how resilient your core businesses will be in the light of these changes. Consider both threats and opportunities, and pinpoint elements of your portfolio that may no longer make sense and that will need to be sold off or shut down, as well as opportunities to accelerate new growth offerings.

Develop a strategy to walk back your envisioned future to today. Working backwards, lay out a path from your long-term aspiration to the mid-term (your post-crisis focal point), and from there to today. Reverse-engineer a series of benchmarks and milestones at regular intervals along the way. The reason to start in the future and "walk" backwards is that (1) it allows you to "clean-sheet" what you could become without being overly constrained by the way things are today; (2) it forces you to think concretely and in terms of dollars and cents, which (3) helps you decide which investments should be given priority.

To give you an example of how this works, suppose you are the president of a university. You know that online learning will be a major part of your future and anchored in new models that seamlessly blend online and in-person offerings. That future - already burgeoning before the crisis, and now being rushed into prime time - has accelerated. Step back from the mad dash to move this year's courses online (an admirable feat, no doubt) and imagine what you'll roll out at the start of the new academic year in the fall of 2021.

Then ask yourself what would have to be true, and by when, for it to happen in the best possible way. Systems will have to be in place, curriculum locked down, integration with conventional offerings worked out, people trained and hired. Perhaps you can meet all your benchmarks if you create the program internally, or maybe you need to partner with a developer or buy something off the shelf. The fall 2020 semester, starting a few months from now, will be a prime opportunity to pilot key elements of your envisioned program.

Be prepared to learn and pivot. Given the rapidly changing environment that you are working in, make sure to measure, monitor, and formally review your progress. Initially, you will be working off assumptions. As you test them in the real world, you will have more data and experience to prove or disprove them. Based on what you learn, adjust both your vision and your strategy.

As you work toward your mid-term and long-term goals, you must be attentive to both the strong and faint signals you receive. That requires a certain degree of humility, as you will likely have to surrender some of your certainties after they are tested against reality and fail. Speed and agility are key; you must learn quickly, constantly pivoting and adjusting. In doing so, you'll also revisit your vision and continue to shape it.

Rally your team around your vision. Your people and stakeholders will have to make sacrifices, so you want them to believe in your view of the better future that they can achieve. Ideally, you already have a long-term vision of what you want to be which is inspiring, imbued with purpose, and relatively stable, compared to the roller coaster you are on today. While a business can succeed without having an explicit mission, there is a close association between missions and margins.

In 2019, our firm Innosight identified the 20 global companies that had achieved the highest-impact transformations of the decade. A newly strengthened sense of purpose, we found, was their common denominator. Siemens, for example, had recently embraced an explicit mission to serve society. China's Tencent had announced a quest to create "tech for social good"; while Denmark's Ørsted transformed itself from a struggling natural gas business to a cutting-edge wind energy company, increasing its net profits by some $3 billion per year. Ørsted's long-term vision of itself as a green company not only inspires its people to perform, it helps its leaders keep its strategy on target.

It is impossible to overestimate gravity of the present crisis. Many of you are wrestling with existential challenges; virtually all of you will have to adopt what amounts to a wartime footing. You may feel that you simply can't afford to carve out the time that it takes to set a vision and build a strategic path to it. But the leaders who manage the day-to-day and lead with vision will emerge from the crisis with companies that are stronger and more resilient than they were before.

If our free content helps you to contend with these challenges, please consider subscribing to HBR. A subscription purchase is the best way to support the creation of these resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leaders, Do You Have a Clear Vision for the Post-Crisis Future?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive Summary As the Covid-19 pandemic shakes the global economy and disrupts the way we live, work, and conduct business, leaders are scrambling to manage the immediate fallout. But, as history proves, it's also necessary to prepare for what's next.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Knud Illeris giver en redegørelse for begreberne: transformativ læring og identitet. Hvor stammer begreberne fra, hvad er deres betydning og samspil, og hvorfor de er så vigtige for unges og voksnes læring i dag.

Knud Illeris er velkendt i den danske skole- og uddannelsesverden og internationalt for sine mange bøger, foredrag mv. om læringsmæssige forhold i bredeste forstand og udviklingen af en bred helhedsteori om læring. Hans har været professor ved Roskilde Universitetscenter og Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet og er nu professor emeritus ved Aarhus Universitet og aktiv i konsulentfirmaet Simonsen & Illeris.

I dag er selv-verdenen det selvfølgelige omdrejningspunkt for de unges orientering. Der sker umærkeligt en transformation til en ny samfundskultur, der fungerer som en underliggende overbevisning og indebærer en skjult normalitetsopfattelse.

Thomas Ziehe er professor i uddannelsesforskning ved Leibniz-universitetet i Hannover. Hans næsten seismografiske indføling i og forståelse af udviklingerne af de unges situation i de senmoderne samfundsformer, og hans overblik og evne til at fortolke, hvad der ændrer sig og udvikler sig, allerede mens det sker, har gennem mere end 30 år gjort ham til en populær foredragsholder, ikke mindst i Danmark.

Etienne Wenger er født i den fransktalende del af Schweiz, men har siden 1980erne boet i Californien og det meste af tiden arbejdet som selvstændig konsulent og forfatter. I 1991 udgav han sammen med Jean Lave den banebrydende bog om Situeret Læring,og i 1998 videreudviklede han sin egen tilgang i bogen Praksisfællesskaber. Han står dermed helt centralt i udviklingen af forståelsen af især voksnes læring som et socialt anliggende.

Vi lever i en tid, hvor alting er i konstant forandring - den flydende modernitet, som det hedder hos den polsk-engelske sociolog Zygmunt Bauman. Det stiller nogle vidtgående krav til vores læring, ikke bare i skolen og uddannelserne, men overalt og gennem hele livet.

I denne forbindelse er begrebet om transformativ læring blevet et internationalt nøglebegreb, som Knud Illeris gennemanalyserer i sin nye bog og knytter til kravet om den moderne identitet, der hele tiden skal balancere mellem stabilitet og fleksibilitet.

Ved den afholdte konference belyste og diskuterede Knud Illeris sammen med to andre førende læringsforskere - Etienne Wenger fra USA og Thomas Ziehe fra Tyskland - de forhold og deres relevans og konsekvenser i forbindelse med unges og voksnes læring

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Knud Illeris giver en redegørelse for begreberne: transformativ læring og identitet. Hvor stammer begreberne fra, hvad er deres betydning og samspil, og hvorfor de er så vigtige for unges og voksnes læring i dag. Knud Illeris er velkendt i den danske skole- og uddannelsesverden og internationalt for sine mange bøger, foredrag mv.

# data[].attributes.body
Væksthus

# data[].attributes.body
af Lisbeth Skytte

# data[].attributes.body
TEAL, fremtidens organisation, frisættende ledelse, holacracy, organisationer gentænkt, selvledelse, agile organisationer, servant leadership, collective leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lord of the Flies (1963 uncut original) directed by Peter Brook.

# data[].attributes.body
TEAL, fremtidens organisation, frisættende ledelse, holacracy, organisationer gentænkt, selvledelse, agile organisationer, servant leadership, collective leadership ....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video SparkNotes: William Golding's Lord of the Flies summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Af: James Høpner, Praktiserende Lægers Organisation | Sverri Hammer, Lektor DTU 02-05-2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Talk the walk, komplicér tingene og træf ikke beslutninger. Det er nogle af de provokerende råd fra social-psykologen Karl E. Weick. Glem alt, hvad du indtil nu har lært om ledelse, og lad dig overraske af de ti anbefalinger inspireret af Weick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Great Leaders Inspire Action | Simon Sinek | TED

# data[].attributes.body
Amazon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Det er surt at blive fyret.

Men spørgsmålet er, om det er endnu surere, når du bliver fyret af en algoritme. Så er der ikke engang en chef, du kan skælde ud i kantinen eller overfuse på parkeringspladsen.

Mere end 300 medarbejdere er, ifølge Tech-mediet The Verge, på samme måde blevet afskediget af en kunstig intelligens, fordi de ikke var effektive nok.

Det er kommet frem efter, at The Verge har fået indsigt i en række dokumenter, som Amazon fremlagde i den amerikanske udgave af arbejdsretten i forbindelse med en sag, hvor en medarbejder følte sig uretmæssigt fyret.

Dokumenterne viser, at Amazon har et automatiseret system, der holder øje med, hvor mange pakker medarbejderne får skippet afsted på en dag - og hvor meget tid, de bruger på pauser - såsom toiletbesøg og frokost.

Og lever de ikke op til standarderne, får de et par automatisk genererede advarsler, inden de ryger ud af vagten. Helt uden noget menneske har været inde over.

Hvis du bliver fyret på gråt papir af en maskine, kan du få en mere maskin-agtig selvopfattelse af dig selv. Langt de fleste foretrækker en samtale og en god forklaring på, hvorfor de bliver fyret

Hans Henrik Knoop, lektor i psykologi på Aarhus Universitet

Chefen kan give afklaring

For Hans Henrik Knoop, der er lektor i psykologi på Aarhus Universitet og i mange år har arbejdet med psykologi på arbejdspladsen, er der ingen tvivl om, at det at blive fyret af en kunstig intelligens for mange kan være hård kost.

- Hvis du bliver fyret på gråt papir af en maskine, kan du få en mere maskin-agtig opfattelse af dig selv også. Langt de fleste foretrækker en samtale og en god forklaring på, hvorfor de bliver fyret, siger han.

Han understreger, at han er bekendt med talrige historier om elendige arbejdsforhold hos Amazon, men at han ikke kender til den konkrete sag. Generelt, understreger han, er det vigtigste dog, at fyringer sker af grunde, som den fyrede kan forstå, og netop samtalen med chefen kan være med til at give en mening med fyringen.

- Hvis du forstår, hvorfor noget er sket, er du langt bedre stillet, end hvis du ikke gør. Og det vil være meget lettere ved at komme videre, selv om det er ubehageligt, siger han.

Algoritmen har også fordele

Men måske er det ikke alle, der vil foretrække at blive kaldt op på chefens kontor, det forklarer Hans Henrik Knoop.

- Hvis reglerne er klare, velbegrundede og fair, vil man i højere grad selv kunne forudse og bestemme, om man vil blive i jobbet. Hvis reglerne er uklare derimod, og det er personlige sympatier hos chefen, der er afgørende, kan det være ret svært at navigere i. Og i givet fald vil en del nok fravælge den prekære fyringssamtale, siger han.

Han sammenligner med et computerspil, hvor reglerne er klare for alle. Hvis du dør, så er du ude. Der har du heller ikke brug for nogen til at forklare dig, hvorfor du røg ud, forklarer han.

Han understreger, at en fordel ved et automatiseret system som Amazons kan være, at det typisk er let for medarbejderne at gennemskue, om de lever op til forventningerne.

- Hvis du kender spillereglerne, og de i øvrigt er rimelige, kan du spille efter dem og derved opnår mere selvbestemmelse og tryghed, end, hvis du hele tiden skulle please en anden person, siger han og fortsætter:

- Hvis algoritmen er tilpasset til engagerede medarbejdere med respekt for deres individuelle styrker og forskelle, tror jeg selv, at jeg ville foretrække en algoritme.

Afviser ikke kritikken

Hos Amazon afviser de ikke, at en lang række medarbejdere er blevet fyret af et fuldt automatiseret system. Men de bekræfter det heller ikke.

Virksomheden understreger dog, skriver de i et svar til The Verge, at deres algoritme ikke fyrer nogen uden først at have givet dem coaching og træning for at forbedre deres indsats.

En mellemleder kan dog altid "annullere" en fyring i systemet, forklarer virksomheden.

Der arbejder mere end 250.000 mennesker i Amazons lagerbygninger rundt omkring i verden - og flere steder har medarbejderne klaget over, at arbejdsmiljøet er elendigt.

Urimelige arbejdsvilkår

Sidste år stod en tidligere lagerarbejder fra Amazon frem i avisen The Guardian og fortalte, hvordan det er at arbejde i en af Amazons lagerbygninger. Lagerbygningerne, som virksomheden kalder for "Fulfillment Centers" (opfylde-ønsker-centre), opfyldte ikke nogen af hans krav til et godt arbejde tværtimod.

Ifølge den tidligere medarbejder får alle lagermedarbejdere en digital tracker på dem som kan overvåge, alt hvad de laver på en arbejdsdag - og om de lever op til deres daglige mål.

Og det faktum, at det er en robot, der overvåger dem, får de ansatte til selv at føle sig som robotter, skrev han.

Ifølge techmediet Futurity, er det dog ikke klart, om Amazon stadig bruger automatiseret fyring i dag. Dokumenterne som offentligheden har fået adgang til, viser nemlig kun fyringer fra august 2017 til september 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robot fyrer hundredvis af lagermedarbejdere hos Amazon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Det er surt at blive fyret. Men spørgsmålet er, om det er endnu surere, når du bliver fyret af en algoritme. Så er der ikke engang en chef, du kan skælde ud i kantinen eller overfuse på parkeringspladsen. Mere end 300 medarbejdere er, ifølge Tech-mediet The Verge, på samme måde blevet afskediget af en kunstig intelligens, fordi de ikke var effektive nok.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategyzer | Business Model Generation Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enterprises and smaller companies use our platform and services to more clearly understand customers, create better products, and grow businesses.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hint til håndtering af overspringshandlinger ...

# data[].attributes.subject
Hint til håndtering af overspringshandlinger ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the Mind of a Master Procrastinator | Tim Urban | TED

# data[].attributes.body
Kompleksitet og paradokser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ralph Stacy at the CPH Change Conference 2016. Full version

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Foto:

Joachim Meier
Psykolog

Ledelseskommissionens anbefalinger til styrket ledelse i den offentlige sektor betoner vigtigheden af lederens lederidentitet. Begrebet optræder ti gange i kommissionens rapport, og det understreges, at " Alle offentlige ledere først og fremmest skal have en stærk lederidentitet" (Ledelseskommissionen, 2018, s. 11) *

Identitet er en kompleks størrelse. Det er lettere at påpege dens vigtighed for god ledelse, end det er at fastslå, hvordan man styrker den i praksis. Kommissionen bevæger sig imidlertid et konkret skridt videre og opfordrer til, at alle 46.000 offentlige ledere "udkommer med deres personlige ledelsesgrundlag" (Ledelseskommissionen, 2018, s. 13). ** Formålet er at tydeligøre overfor ens chef, medarbejdere og borgere, hvem man er, og hvad man står for.***

Det fremtrædende fokus på lederens identitet kan læses som en del af en bredere bevægelse i tiden, hvor det personlige lederskab sættes på ledelses-dagsordenen. Som én af kommissionens medlemmer, Alfred Josefsen, formulerer det i en video på kommissionens hjemmeside: "Ledelse er ikke noget, der kommer ud af en maskine; ledelse er noget, der kommer ud af mennesker".****

Jeg tilslutter mig Josefsens udsagn. Ledelse kommer ikke ud af maskiner, men ud af mennesker. Men spørgsmålet er, om en masseproduktion af 46.000 personlige ledelsesgrundlag ude i landets kommuner er den bedste måde at understrege det på? Handler det overhovedet om personligt lederskab, hvis arbejdet hermed bliver til en formmæssig metervare?

Hvis ledelse ikke kommer ud af maskiner, men ud af mennesker, bør vi passe på ikke at forfalde til en maskinel produktion af de mennesker, som ledelse kommer ud af.

Fra målstyring til identitetsstyring

Forskning såvel som praktiske erfaringer har vist, at målstyring ikke kun hjælper organisationer med at nå deres mål. I tillæg produceres en række ikke-intenderede bivirkninger. En typisk bivirkning er målfiksering, der henviser til en tendens til tunnelsyn. Det vil sige til snævert at fokusere på synlige præstationer, mens man forsømmer den kvalitet, der ligger i det, der ikke måles på.

Målstyringssystemer som New Public Management og Performance Management kan i sidste ende aldrig vikariere for lederen selv. Det er derfor velkomment, at ledelseskommissionen tildeler det personlige lederskab en vigtig status i spørgsmålet om, hvad god ledelse er. Men med det personlige ledelsesgrundlag indstiftes nu en risiko for, at identitets-fiksering kan blive en problematisk bivirkning.

Problemet er i praksis, at en leder, der i sit ledelsesgrundlag for eksempel skriver, at hun identificerer sig med at sætte en tydelig retning, kan komme til at fiksere på den kvalitet. Lederen vil givetvis komme til at stå i situationer, hvor hun på den ene side selvfølgelig godt kan vælge at sætte en tydelig retning, men hvor det i højere grad vil tjene opgaven, at hun inddrog sine medarbejdere. Bestræbelsen på at leve op til sit personlige ledelsesgrundlag risikerer at blokere for lederens læsning af, hvad praksis løbende kalder på.

Et andet eksempel er tillid, som efter alt sandsynlighed kommer til at florere i nogle tusinde af de 46.000 personlige ledelsesgrundlag. Men hvad med de situationer, hvor der faktisk er behov for en leder, der går tæt på og måske endda agerer kontrollerende? Både din chef og dine medarbejdere kan nu stævne dig for, at du ikke leder gennem tillid. Du gør jo ikke det, som du skrev i dit ledelsesgrundlag! Du handler ikke, som du lovede på den ellers så flotte video, du udkom med!

Det personlige ledelsesgrundlag kan i værste fald udvikle sig til en problematisk form for identitets-styring, som det er vanskeligt at se kommer nogen som helst til gode. "I vores organisation har det ikke været et krav at udkomme med sit personlige ledelsesgrundlag, det har været et personligt valg", fortalte chefen mig.
"Er der så nogle af jer, som har valgt ikke at dele det?", spurgte jeg.
"Nej, der er ingen, som ikke har delt det. Man ser også gerne, at alle deler det, men det er ikke et krav hos os", understregede chefen.
Opfordringen til at dele sit personlige ledelsesgrundlag er mange steder ikke et krav, men et personligt valg. Ledere styres, presses eller tvinges ikke til det. Men hvor nemt er det at sige "nej, jeg har ikke planer om at dele det?". Hvor oplagt er det at indvende, at man ikke mener, det skaber værdi for organisationen, at medarbejdere og chefen ved, hvem man er som leder? Luften kan godt være tyk af krav, som ikke nødvendigvis er eksplicitte. Man kan høre sine kolleger tænke: Hvad har du da at skjule? Eller: #ViDelerAlt som jeg for nyligt så på et hashtag på linkedin. Det kaldes også transparens. Gennemsigtighed er altid godt, er det ikke? Hvem kan være uenig det?

Det kan den tyske filosof Byung-Chul Han, som i sin bog Transparenssamfundet (2016), forholder sig kritisk til samtidens ideal om det gennemlyste og transparente: "Transparensimperativet mistænkeliggør alt, som ikke underkaster sig synligheden. Deri ligger dets vold og magt" (Han, s. 29), skriver han.

Èn af pointerne hos Byung-Chul Han er, at det ikke er i transparensen, at sandheden om mennesket findes. Tværtimod, mener han, at den konstante udstillingstvang i sidste ende berøver os vores ansigter. Ifølge Byung-Chul Han virker kravet om transparens ved at underordne alle processer styring og beregning med henblik på at accelerere og effektivisere dem (Han, 2016, s. 10). Som det står beskrevet i kommissionens startkit er formålet med ledelsesgrundlaget blandt andet netop at skabe transparens for at "accelerere samarbejdet". *****

Professor i psykologi Lene Tanggaard skriver i sin bog Læringsglemsel (2018), at mennesker lærer bedst, når de glemmer, at de lærer og fortaber sig i meningsfuldt indhold. På samme vis kan man sige, at mennesket har brug for "værens-glemsel". Man bliver paradoksalt nok kun sig selv ved at glemme sig selv og fortabe sig i sine livs- og ledelsesopgaver. Som den tysk-jødiske filosof Hannah Arendt har formuleret det, har mennesket behov for at vokse i mørket (Arendt, 1990, s. 96). I det transparente og gennemlyste udstillingsvindue stivner menneskets identitet.

Sammenligningens urolige tanke
"Man kan godt blive duperet og tænke: gid det var mig, der havde fundet på den formulering", betroede chefen mig.

Vi lever i en talende tid. Det er ikke nok at være god og dygtig til sit arbejde. Man skal tilmed være god og dygtig til at fortælle, at man er god og dygtig. Er man oven i købet i stand til at fortælle, hvor man ikke er god og dygtig, men gerne vil udvikle sig, underbygger det kun, at man for alvor er god og dygtig. Men ledere skal ikke først og fremmest være marketingsfolk eller kommunikationseksperter, der kan sælge sig selv. Identitet er ikke en "varedekleration", som det personlige ledelsesgrundlag beskrives som i kommissionens startkit. ******

Chefen indviede mig i, at det havde været af stor vigtighed for lederne i organisationen, at de ikke påvirkede hinandens ledelsesgrundlag. Grundlaget er deres eget og skal fremstå personligt, understregede hun.

Identitet handler på den måde grundlæggende om forskelle; om at være unik og dermed forskellig fra de andre. Men dette fokus kan skabe en problematisk tendens til sammenligning omkring de fedeste formuleringer, de ærligste indsigter, det mest unikke set-up. Søren Kierkegaard kaldte det for sammenligningens urolige tanke. Den tanke, der lister sig ind på et menneske og hvisker: er de andre mere interessante? Bedre til at udtrykke sig end mig? Bedre til at sætte ord på, hvem de er, end jeg er?
Kommunikation er selvfølgelig et uundværligt omdrejningspunkt for god ledelse. Men ikke alt kvalificeres af at blive italesat. Italesættelse er blevet en foretrukken dyd i mange organisationer, men bruges ofte misvisende, for italesættelse betyder ikke, "det skal vi tale om". Ordet kom ind i det danske sprog i 1978, da den danske filosof Søren Gosvig Olesen oversatte den franske filosof Michel Foucaults værker. Her oversatte han"mise en discours" til den hidtil ukendte danske sammensætning italesættelse. Det nærmeste synonym hertil er iscenesættelse. Det vil sige, at når vi italesætter, er vi altid også undervejs med at iscenesætte. Sætte virkeligheden, os selv, værdier, ønsker og forventninger i scene på bestemte måder.

Det er ikke nødvendigvis dårligt eller forkert. Alt, der kommer ud af munden på mennesker, er vel altid en form for iscenesættelse, kan man hævde. Men ledelse bør ikke reduceres til mundens kraft, det vil sige til kommunikation og retorik. Ledelse handler først og fremmest om håndens kraft som metafor for viljens, handlingens og undersøgelsens domæne.

I hånden sidder den praktiske visdom og lederens dømmekraft; det græske phronesis. Mundens snaksalighed og iscenesættelse kan ligefrem sløve håndens arbejde og evne til åbent at sanse og fornemme sig ind på sine omgivelser. Håndens kraft fungerer primært igennem en tavs og kropslig forankret viden. Hånden er ikke først og fremmest opmærksom på sig selv, men på verden, på organisationen og på medarbejderne.

Det betyder ikke, at eksplicitte ord og tydelig tale ikke er vigtig for god ledelse. Ledere skal kunne begrunde sine beslutninger, handlinger og retning for sine medarbejdere. Med det betyder, at du godt kan være en god leder uden at rumme et stort vokabular for, hvem du selv er som leder.

Jeg tænker her konkret på en leder, som modtog en fantastisk god lederevaluering af sine medarbejdere. Lederen havde et tilsvarende begrænset sprog for sig selv som leder. Hans viden om ledelse var primært en tavs viden, ikke teoretisk. Hans viden var om praksis, og mindre om ham selv. God ledelse handler ikke sjældent om at tie stille, blive opmærksom på det der er "derude" og om at kunne handle på det.
I det personlige ledelsesgrundlag opfordres man til at beskrive sine egne ledelsesværdier. Men værdier er ikke først og fremmest personlige. Faktisk kan man gå så vidt som til at hævde, at personlige værdier slet ikke eksisterer. Der findes værdier, og der findes personer. Og der findes et personligt engagement i værdier, som selvfølgelig er helt afgørende for værdiernes praktiske virke. Men det gør ikke værdierne personlige. Værdier har værdi uafhængigt af, om de betones i et personligt ledelsesgrundlag eller ej.

Hvis man ser det for sig i praksis, er det på en måde indlysende. De værdier, som ledere bør leve op til, begrænser sig nemlig ikke til dem, som de beskriver som personligt vigtige. Tag for eksempel værdien retfærdighed. Ledere bør leve op til værdien retfærdighed, selvom værdien hverken står beskrevet i organisationens eller personens ledelsesgrundlag. Det afgørende er altså ikke, hvorvidt man identificerer sig med at være en retfærdig leder. Det afgørende er, at man i praksis lever op til den fordring, som værdien retfærdighed løbende stiller i bestemte situationer.

I stedet for at fokusere på at styrke blikket for sine personlige værdier, skal man derfor hellere styrke opmærksomheden for de værdier, der løbende er tilstede i de fordringer, som praksis stiller. Det kan være at styrke sensibiliteten overfor helt grundlæggende værdier som retfærdighed, generøsitet eller ydmyghed.

Det kan desuden være en indsigt i og bestræbelse på at efterleve de lokale værdier i et bestemt praksisfælleskab, som der er adskillige af i den offentlige sektor. Set i det lys bør eksempelvis skoleledere ikke først og fremmest orientere sig mod deres personlige værdier, men mod at leve op til de værdier, som historisk har formet skolen og gjort den til en helt særlig praksis med en lang og stærk dansk værditradition.

Det er velkomment, at det personlige lederskab vægtes i forståelsen af, hvad god ledelse er. Ledelse kommer ikke ud af maskiner. Ledelse kommer ud af mennesker. Men mennesker kommer ikke ud af sig selv.

Litteratur

Han, B-C. (2016). Transparenssamfundet. Forlaget Mindspace.

Arendt, H. (1963/1990). On Revolution. New York, Penguin Book.

Tanggaard, L. (2018) Læringsglemsel. Aarhus. KLIM

* https://ledelseskom.dk/files/media/documents/hovedpublikationer/saet_borgerne_foerst_-_ledelseskommissionens_rapport.pdf

** https://ledelseskom.dk/files/media/documents/hovedpublikationer/saet_borgerne_foerst_-_ledelseskommissionens_rapport.pdf

*** https://www.lederweb.dk/dig-selv/lederrollen/artikel/166653/ledelseskommission-du-skal-formulere-dit-ledelsesgrundlag

**** https://ledelseskom.dk/publikationer/dit-personlige-ledelsesgrundlag

***** https://ledelseskom.dk/files/media/documents/ledelsesgrundlag/dit_personlige_ledelsesgrundlag_-_startkit_fra_ledelseskommissionen.pdf

****** https://ledelseskom.dk/files/media/documents/ledelsesgrundlag/dit_personlige_ledelsesgrundlag_-_startkit_fra_ledelseskommissionen.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pas på med identitets-styring af offentlige ledere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ledelseskommissionens anbefalinger til styrket ledelse i den offentlige sektor betoner vigtigheden af lederens lederidentitet. Begrebet optræder ti gange i kommissionens rapport, og det understreges, at "Alle offentlige ledere først og fremmest skal have en stærk lederidentitet" (Ledelseskommissionen, 2018, s. 11) * Identitet er en kompleks størrelse.

# data[].attributes.body
udspil fra regeringen i forlængelse af moderniseringsstyrelsens arbejde og ledelseskommissionens anbefalinger. Udspillet handler både om ledelse, som styring, om veje til kompetenceudvikling og om hvor man agter at skabe nye systematikker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
En offentlig sektor rustet til fremtiden - ledelse og kompetencer i den offentlige sektor

# data[].attributes.body
Denne typologi er for alvor slået igennem i Danmark og Norden.

# data[].attributes.body
Inddrage eller involvere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Der er forskel på at inddrage og involvere. Ledelseskonsulent Jens Ulrich peger her på de centrale forskelle, som kan være relevante at huske på, når man arbejder med borger-relationer.

Borgerinddragelse handler om at lytte til borgerne, og de offentlige aktørers roller er efterfølgende at udforme relevante indsatser og tiltag. Borgerinvolvering handler om at invitere borgerne til at involvere sig i udformningen og udviklingen af relevante indsatser og tiltag - og involvering er ofte vejen til innovation, samskabelse og tilfredse borgere.

Når man ser i såvel den teoretiske litteratur som i de politikker og visioner, som offentlige organisationer formulerer, så er der ikke en entydig og konsistent forskel på, hvilke processer der karakteriseres som inddragende, og hvilke der karakteriseres som involverende. Der er imidlertid en pointe i at prøve at reservere de to begreber til hver deres forskellige praksis. Ikke for begrebsudredningens egen skyld, men for at blive mere klar på, hvilke typer processer man igangsætter, når der er en særlig hensigt med at motivere borgerne til deltagelse.

Den offentlige sektor i Danmark har en lang tradition for at inddrage borgerne - dels for at kvalificere de politiske beslutningsprocesser, dels for at kvalificere udviklingen og tilrettelæggelsen af offentlige ydelser og services. Grundideen er, at det offentlige gerne vil have input fra borgerne. Det kan være for at få gode ideer og inspiration til løsninger, når der skal udvikles nye tiltag. Eller det kan være for at høre borgernes holdning til en allerede formuleret politik eller et udviklet velfærdstiltag.

Fælles for de to ambitioner om inddragelse er, at de begge inviterer til, at borgerne kommer med input, som efterfølgende bliver bearbejdet på forvaltnings- eller institutionsniveau. Der lyttes til borgernes indspark, og dernæst bliver der tilrettelagt relevante tiltag i respekt for borgernes indspark og i respekt for de rammer og vilkår, som politiske og juridiske bindinger fører med sig.

Ved inddragelse lytter de offentlige aktører altså til borgernes stemmer, men borgerne bliver ikke inviteret ind i et decideret udviklingsrum eller beslutningsrum.
Mange måder at inddrage borgerne på
Der er mange måder at udforme inddragelsesprocesser på.

De kan have karakter af høringer og fokusgrupper. Der kan ligeledes være tale om opstilling af en postkasse eller videooptager, hvor borgerne eksempelvis kan give deres mening til kende i forbindelse med en byrenovering eller et kvarterløftsprojekt. En inddragelsesproces kan tillige bestå af idéudviklingsworkshops, hvor de offentlige aktører søger inspiration uden at forpligte sig på løsninger. Der kan listes flere eksempler op, men fælles for disse eksempler er, at man på den ene eller anden vis forsøger at give borgerne en mulighed for aktivt at artikulere deres stemme.

Borgernes stemme kan også mobiliseres på anden vis. Det kan blandt andet være gennem tiltag, hvor kommunale aktører tager på feltstudier eller etablerer forskellige former for antropologisk inspirerede brugerrejser. Her er der mulighed for at være nysgerrig på borgernes stemme eller interesser, uden at de som sådan er aktive i selve processen.

Om det er initiativer, der appellerer til borgernes aktive meningstilkendegivelse, eller det er mere analyserende initiativer, hvor man er nysgering på borgernes perspektiv, så gælder det i begge scenarier, at formålet med inddragende processer er at bringe borgernes stemme og interesser i spil.
Involvering tager borgerne med i maskinrummet
Involvering er andet og mere end inddragelse.

Ved involvering vil man som offentlig aktør ikke blot lytte til borgerne og efterfølgende selv udvikle og tilrettelægge relevante tiltag og indsatser. Involvering indebærer, at borgerne også bliver inviteret ind i konkrete udviklings- og beslutningsprocesser. Borgerne står altså ikke som ved inddragelse 'bare' på sidelinjen, men inviteres så at sige ind i den offentlige sektors maskinrum og er med til at udvikle og udforme velfærdsløsninger og er involveret i selve beslutningsprocessen.

Involveringsprocesser er typisk dét, man forsøger at initiere, når det er samskabelse med borgerne, der er målet. Konkret inviterer man typisk til at udvikle en løsning på en konkret opgave sammen med kommunale aktører. Det kan være i udformningen af en indsats eller i løsningen af en konkret problemstilling.

Involvering kan eksempelvis bringes i spil, når man gerne udnytte nye arealer til rekreative formål, men ikke på forhånd ved, hvad den bedste løsning er. Det kan også være når man vil udvikler det lokale bibliotek til et medborgerhus, eller når man søger løsninger på, hvordan man håndterer kriminalitet i et bestemt boligområde. Eksemplerne kan således være mange og forskelligartede.

Fælles for de involverende initiativer er, at borgerne billedligt talt bliver inviteret til på ligeværdig vis at sidde med ved det runde bord. Konkret kan eksempelvist borgermøder, workshops eller fremtidsværksteder danne rammen om en proces, hvor de deltagende parter alle er med til at udvikle, nytænke og beslutte, hvordan en indsats eller et tiltag skal udformes.

Borgerinddragelse og borgerinvolvering er, som det fremgår, udtryk for to ret forskellige intentioner og to ret forskellige måder at byde borgerne ind på. Men den ene tilgang er i princippet ikke bedre end den anden. Det handler om, hvad ønsker er at opnå.

Det er derfor værd at dvæle lidt ved, hvornår der skal inddrages, og hvornår der skal involveres.
Hvornår skal der inddrages, og hvornår skal der involveres?
Ser vi først på borgerinddragelsesprocesser, så er en af fordelene, at der er mulighed for at komme i kontakt med mange borgere på én gang. Man kan således få et bredt spekter af input, som efterfølgende kan blive indarbejdet i formuleringen af relevante indsatser og tiltag.

Problemet med inddragelse kan modsat være, at man sjældent kan imødekomme alle de input, som er blevet artikuleret. Dels fordi der er mange input, hvilket i sig selv kan være svært at håndtere. Dels fordi de mange input formentlig heller ikke alle trækker i samme retning.

En konsekvens ved inddragelse kan være, at de borgere, som har gjort sig ulejlighed med at deltage for eksempel med et høringssvar, ikke føler sig hørt, når deres bidrag ikke er indarbejdet i den endelige indsats eller det endelige tiltag.

Det er selvsagt et demokratisk vilkår, at alle ikke bliver bestemmende, men borgerne kan ofte opleve det som om, at "nu har kommunen igen lavet en skinproces for at legitimere det, der allerede var besluttet".
Plusser og minusser ved involvering
Involverende processer giver derimod typisk den udfordring, at man bliver presset på volumen. Vil man involvere, så kræver det faciliterede processer, hvor det sjældent er muligt at invitere lige så mange ind i en involverende proces som en inddragende proces. Det er ikke umuligt med mange deltagere, men det kræver mange ressourcer og ender ofte med komplicerede processer, det kan være vanskeligt at styre.

Selv om der i involverende processer bliver nedskaleret på deltagerantallet, er det dog muligt - gennem en kompetent facilitering - at få oplevelsen af at være med i en skinproces til at blive afløst af et større ejerskab og en større ansvarlighed i forhold til den endelige indsats eller det endelige tiltag. Erfaringen er, at når borgere har været involveret i processen, har været med til at udvikle og også har været en del af en konkret beslutningsproces, så er ejerskabet og følgeskabet til det endelige produkt også større.

Med involvering giver man altså ofte køb på volumen, men får ejerskab til gengæld.
Én plus én kan blive tre og skabe innovation
Man kan hente idéer og inspiration til nytænkning i inddragelsesprocesser, men de bidrager ikke i sig selv til nytænkning eller innovation. Her er involverende processer mere oplagte at bringe i anvendelse.

Dét, at involverende processer inviterer til dialog omkring det metaforiske runde bord, fører til, at der brydes meninger og holdninger. På den måde bliver der udviklet nyt.

Dialogen i involverende processer giver liv til princippet om, at "én plus én giver tre" og medfører, at der bliver udviklet mere end dét, de enkelte deltagere hver især kom med som udgangspunkt. Denne innovative merværdi er betydelig vanskeligere at realisere, hvis man, som i de inddragende processer, alene er nysgerrig på borgernes synspunkter.

Involverende processer kan altså understøtte nytænkning og innovation, mens inddragelse i højere grad bidrager til at give de offentlige aktører input.
Én ekspertposition eller fælles om ekspertrollen?
Der er også forskel på, hvilken position offentlige aktører indtager, når de anvender henholdsvis inddragende og involverende processer.

Ved inddragelse beholder den offentlige aktør ekspertpositionen, hvilket selvsagt kan være helt legitimt, hvis det er begrundet i vægtige faglige, politiske eller juridiske forhold.

Når det handler om involverende processer, bliver den offentlige aktørs ekspertposition afløst af en mere ligeværdig tilgang til ekspertise. Her positioneres borgerne også med en form for ekspertposition - den er ikke nødvendigvis begrundet i faglighed, men måske i lokalkendskab, erfaring eller andre forhold, som er relevante for processen. Det betyder ikke, at de offentlige aktører må lægge deres faglighed på hylden i involverende processer - blot at deres faglighed ikke kommer til at stå alene og dermed heller ikke per automatik trumfer ikke-faglige positioner.

Man kan sige, at inddragelse kan afstedkomme, at man som offentlig aktør kan kvalificere en løsning for borgerne, mens en involverende tilgang normalt indebærer, at der bliver udviklet en kvalificeret løsning med borgerne.
Vigtigt at være helt spids på rammerne
En typisk indvending mod at gå efter involverende processer frem for inddragelsesprocesser er, at man jo ikke kan invitere borgerne ind i et beslutningsrum, hvor alt er i spil. At der er regler, politikker, faglighed og meget andet, som sætter begrænsninger for, hvordan man kan udvikle og tage fælles beslutninger om potentielle tiltag og indsatser. Og ja, det vil der ofte være.

Det er dog stadig relevant at afsøge muligheden for at gennemføre involverende processer. Man skal blot gøre sig selv og de involverede borgere klart, hvad rammerne for processen er. Processen skal tage hensyn til de vilkår, som ikke er til at ændre. Man skal så at sige sætte hegnspæle op, så processens mulighedsrum bliver rammet ind.

Ved involverende processer ligger der med andre ord en stor opgave for den offentlige aktør i forhold til selv at blive helt klar på, hvad der er i spil, og hvad der er vilkår og dermed ikke i spil. I forlængelse af dette ligger der også en stor opgave i at få kommunikeret rammerne og mulighederne til de involverede borgere, så der er en fælles forståelse for, hvad det er, de involverende processer sætter i spil.
Involvering er egnet til samskabelse
Både inddragende processer og involverende processer kan have deres berettigelse.

Men de involverende processer er bedst i stand til at indfri en ambition om at arbejde mere samskabende. I de involverende processer er skabelseselementet således betydeligt mere fremtrædende, end det er tilfældet i de inddragende processer. Derfor bør offentlige organisationer med ambitioner om at arbejde mere samskabende tænke mere i involvering end i inddragelse.

Samskabelse er en relativ ny tilgang, som offentlige organisationer prøver kræfter med, og det er involverende processer også.

Derimod er det at arbejde med inddragende processer er ikke nyt for de offentlige aktører. Her er der gjort en del erfaringer, og her føler man sig stadig på sikker grund, når selve beslutningsprocessen og dermed også magten ikke spilles af hænde.

Det kræver mod, nye kompetencer, velvilje samt organisatorisk og ledelsesmæssig opbakning, hvis man skal omstille sig til at arbejde mere involverende og samskabende. Til gengæld er der også mulighed for at skabe ny værdi, nye løsninger og nye innovative tiltag, hvis man vover sig ud af komfortzonen og prøver kræfter med samskabelse og involverende processer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inddragelse eller involvering - hvordan når vi borgerne i samskabende processer?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Der er forskel på at inddrage og involvere. Ledelseskonsulent Jens Ulrich peger her på de centrale forskelle, som kan være relevante at huske på, når man arbejder med borger-relationer. Borgerinddragelse handler om at lytte til borgerne, og de offentlige aktørers roller er efterfølgende at udforme relevante indsatser og tiltag.

# data[].attributes.body
4D i 5F udgaven - husk AI er meget mere end dette værktøj

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
5F-modellen er en fasemodel, der udspringer af den anerkendende og ressourceorienterede tilgang Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Modellen er velegnet som ramme for udviklingsprocesser i almindelighed, og kan også bruges som forløbsskitse for udviklingssamtaler, som fx coaching.
Af Asbjørn Molly, org.- og ledelseskonsulent og Jacob Storch, direktør i RMC/Attractor
Grundtanken i AI er, at forandring og udvikling i en organisation bedst skabes ved at engagere organisationens medlemmer i aktivt og systematisk at lære af deres succeser. Det gøres ved at rette fokus på medlemmernes mest vellykkede og succesrige handlingsmønstre i arbejdet og dermed inddrage forståelsen af den bedste praksis som en aktiv del af medarbejderens kompetencer.

Andet trin er med afsæt i bedste praksis at opstille og beskrive fremtidige successcenarier. Herefter lægges en konkret mål- og handlingplan for realiseringen af disse.

En visionsdrevet tilgang til forandring og udvikling

Forandring og problemløsning skal med andre ord tage udgangspunkt der, hvor organisationen fungerer bedst. Det skaber ofte kreative og konstruktive udviklingsprocesser. Formuleret i én sætning sætter AI fokus på og udnytter den kreative spænding mellem den bedste nuværende praksis og artikulerede, fællesgjorte billeder af den ideelle praksis, og omdanner det til konkrete handlinger.

Med dette udgangspunkt adskiller AI sig markant fra mange andre ledelsesteorier og udviklingstilgange ved at tænke udvikling som noget, der ikke er direkte koblet til at løse problemer og rette eller forebygge fejl. I stedet understreges nødvendigheden af at skabe positive, selvforstærkende arbejdskulturer; et aspekt, der samles i begrebsdannelsen det heliotropiske princip.

Ordet heliotropisk er sammensat af det græske helios (sol) og trope (vending). Traditionelt bruges udtrykket i forbindelse med planter der drejer sig efter solen, som vi kender det fra for eksempel solsikken. Dette begreb føres over i organisationstænkningen, hvor det betegner det udviklingsprincip, at både individer og organisationer har en tendens til at handle i nuet ud fra deres forestillinger om fremtiden. Jo lysere fremtidsudsigter, desto stærkere udviklingseffekt i positiv retning, og omvendt: jo mørkere, desto mere negativ udvikling. Med andre ord fører positive forestillingsbilleder af fremtiden til positive handlinger i nutiden.

Modellen

5F-modellen er en konkret måde at operationalisere denne grundtanke i den anerkendende og ressourceorienterede tilgang. Modellen er en fordansket videreudvikling af 3D-modellen, som en af grundlæggerne af AI, David Cooperrider, opstillede. Som nævnt er modellen velegnet til stort set alle udviklingsprocesser. I det følgende vil vi præsentere den med udgangspunkt i en coachingsamtale.

Modellen kan rent grafisk stilles op på mange måder, men har som basis fem faser:

Her fokuseres der på den kompetence eller organisatoriske færdighed, som medarbejderen og coachen i fællesskab aftaler, skal udvikles.

Fase 2 (Forstå):

I fase 2 begynder de at indsamle viden om, hvordan færdigheden hidtil er kommet til udtryk i medarbejderens arbejde. Udforskningen skal være baseret på vellykkede episoder og har til formål at beskrive og forklare de sammenhænge, der illustrerer medarbejderens bedste praksis.

Fase 3 (Forestil):

Her rettes fokus mod fremtiden og mod medarbejderens ønsker og 'drømme' om den ideelle praksis. (Ofte kan det i en dansk arbejdssammenhæng virke lige svulstigt nok at tale om drømme; så kan man i stedet bruge 'visioner' eller 'forestillinger'). Hensigten med denne fase er at udfordre medarbejderens vante tanker og selvforståelser ved at sætte dem op imod et artikuleret billede af, hvordan det kunne være.

Fase 4 (Fastslå):

I denne fase kobles det eller de billeder, der netop er blevet artikuleret, til de situationsbeskrivelser, man fandt frem til i fase to, og der tales om, hvilke aspekter af forestillingsbillederne, der har særlig relevans for det videre udviklingsarbejde. Her opstår den kreative spænding mellem bedste praksis og billederne af den ideelle praksis, og dette udmøntes i konkrete målsætninger.

Fase 5 (Frigør):

I sidste fase laves så konkrete handlingsplaner for realiseringen af målsætningerne.

Hele denne proces kan gennemløbes i en enkelt coachingsamtale, som i det følgende eksempel med en salgsmedarbejder, der ønsker at blive bedre til kundekontakt og salgsmøder:
Fase 1:
Her fastlægges det, at fokus er på at optimere kundekontakt og salgsmøder.

Fase 2:

Herefter går coachen direkte over til at spørge ind til eksempler på bedste hidtidige praksis og mest vellykkede oplevelser med at afholde salgsmøder med kunderne:

* Beskriv de episoder, hvor din kundekontakt er lykkedes bedst.

* Hvad gjorde du, som skabte det?

* Hvordan forberedte du dig?

* Hvilke rutiner, tilgange, metoder m.m. brugte du?

Coachen kan med fordel løbende opsummere de erfaringer, medarbejderen fortæller om, og som afslutning bede medarbejderen sammenskrive de vigtigste rutiner og tilgange. Allerede i denne fase ligger der en positiv effekt, idet medarbejderen får rettet fokus på alle de ting, han gør, som allerede lykkes, og derved opbygger en mere positiv tænkning om sig selv som aktør på feltet.
Fase 3:
I denne fase bevæger coach og medarbejder sig et niveau op fra den aktuelle situation og retter fokus mod medarbejderens forestillinger og visioner for den fremtidige kundekontakt. Ofte vil denne fase foregå i nutidssprog og indbefatte spørgsmål som:

* Hvor forestiller du dig, at du kan nå hen med din kundekontakt om f.eks. et år fra nu?

* Hvad er det bedst mulige salgsmøde, du kan afholde?

* Beskriv det helt konkret! Hvad gør du? Hvad siger du? Hvordan modtager du kunden? Hvordan afslutter du handlen?

* Hvilke rutiner, tilgange, metoder m.m. bruger du?

* Hvordan oplever kunden det?

Hensigten med denne øvelse er som nævnt at udfordre og udvide medarbejderens vante tanker, handlingsmønstre og selvforståelser. Da de nye fremtidsbilleder er dannet i direkte forlængelse af allerede eksisterende succeser (fase 2), opleves de oftest som sammenhængende og realistiske.

Fase 4:

I denne fase fastslås, hvilke tiltag medarbejderen skal satse på at realisere. Der defineres konkrete målsætninger, som formuleres i handlingsorienterede statements. F.eks.:

* Mine kunder oplever til hvert eneste møde, at jeg har målrettet mit tilbud specifikt til deres behov.

* Når kunder retter skriftlig henvendelse, sørger jeg for altid at svare dem hurtigt, sagligt, imødekommende og fyldestgørende. I perioder med stort tidspres sørger jeg for at underrette kunderne om, at jeg har modtaget deres henvendelse og vil svare snarest.

* Mine kunder oplever i hver eneste situation, at jeg tager deres behov særdeles alvorligt, og at jeg prøver at forudsige behovene.

Hvor fase 3 er en fri, dialogisk og kreativ udforskning af muligheder i fremtiden, går medarbejderen i fase 4 ind og arbejder med at udvælge de tiltag, han vil satse på, og opstiller konkrete og forpligtende målsætninger for det.

Fase 5:

I denne fase er målet at definere de handlinger og handleplaner, som kan realisere de målsætninger, som blev skabt i fase 4. Vi kalder fasen Frigør, fordi det ofte opleves som legende let at frigøre de handlinger, der skal til for at nå målsætningerne (fordi forestillingsfasen som regel rummer de fleste af de nødvendige løsninger - medarbejderen beskriver jo helt konkret, hvad og hvordan han gør, når det lykkes for ham).

Med dette forløb igennem de fem faser har medarbejderen altså - i løbet af én samtale - gennemanalyseret sin bedste praksis med kundekontakt og salgsmøder, og via forestillinger og visioner for den ideelle praksis formuleret konkrete målsætninger, samt lavet handleplaner, som kan realisere målsætningerne.
Som vi har været inde på, kan 5F-modellen med lige så stor virkning bruges i forbindelse med udviklingsforløb, som fx visionsprocesser, fastlæggelse af strategiske indsatsområder, trivselssamtaler mv.
Læs mere: Da anerkendelsen greb os Syg efter anerkendelse Tænk i forskellighed når du kommunikerer - Introduktion til Appreciative Inquiry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
5F-modellen er en fasemodel, der udspringer af den anerkendende og ressourceorienterede tilgang Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Modellen er velegnet som ramme for udviklingsprocesser i almindelighed, og kan også bruges som forløbsskitse for udviklingssamtaler, som fx coaching.

# data[].attributes.body
E og O

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Idea in Brief

Here's the brutal fact: 70% of all change initiatives fail. Why? Managers flounder in an alphabet soup of change methods, drowning in conflicting advice. Change efforts exact a heavy toll-human and economic-as companies flail from one change method to another.

To effect successful change, first grasp the two basic theories of change:

1) Theory E change emphasizes economic value-as measured only by shareholder returns. This "hard" approach boosts returns through economic incentives, drastic layoffs, and restructuring. "Chainsaw Al" Dunlop's firing 11,000 Scott Paper employees and selling several businesses-tripling shareholder value to $9 billion-is a stunning example.

2) Theory O change-a "softer" approach-focuses on developing corporate culture and human capability, patiently building trust and emotional commitment to the company through teamwork and communication.

Then, carefully and simultaneously balance these very different approaches. It's not easy. Employees distrust leaders who alternate between nurturing and cutthroat behavior. But, done well, you'll boost profits and productivity, and achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

The Idea in Practice

The UK grocery chain, ASDA, teetered on bankruptcy in 1991. Here's how CEO Archie Norman combined change Theories E and O with spectacular results: a culture of trust and openness- and an eightfold increase in shareholder value.

The new economy has ushered in great business opportunities-and great turmoil. Not since the Industrial Revolution have the stakes of dealing with change been so high. Most traditional organizations have accepted, in theory at least, that they must either change or die. And even Internet companies such as eBay, Amazon.com, and America Online recognize that they need to manage the changes associated with rapid entrepreneurial growth. Despite some individual successes, however, change remains difficult to pull off, and few companies manage the process as well as they would like. Most of their initiatives-installing new technology, downsizing, restructuring, or trying to change corporate culture-have had low success rates. The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail.

In our experience, the reason for most of those failures is that in their rush to change their organizations, managers end up immersing themselves in an alphabet soup of initiatives. They lose focus and become mesmerized by all the advice available in print and on-line about why companies should change, what they should try to accomplish, and how they should do it. This proliferation of recommendations often leads to muddle when change is attempted. The result is that most change efforts exert a heavy toll, both human and economic. To improve the odds of success, and to reduce the human carnage, it is imperative that executives understand the nature and process of corporate change much better. But even that is not enough. Leaders need to crack the code of change.

For more than 40 years now, we've been studying the nature of corporate change. And although every business's change initiative is unique, our research suggests there are two archetypes, or theories, of change. These archetypes are based on very different and often unconscious assumptions by senior executives-and the consultants and academics who advise them-about why and how changes should be made. Theory E is change based on economic value. Theory O is change based on organizational capability. Both are valid models; each theory of change achieves some of management's goals, either explicitly or implicitly. But each theory also has its costs-often unexpected ones.

Theory E change strategies are the ones that make all the headlines. In this "hard" approach to change, shareholder value is the only legitimate measure of corporate success. Change usually involves heavy use of economic incentives, drastic layoffs, downsizing, and restructuring. E change strategies are more common than O change strategies among companies in the United States, where financial markets push corporate boards for rapid turnarounds. For instance, when William A. Anders was brought in as CEO of General Dynamics in 1991, his goal was to maximize economic value-however painful the remedies might be. Over the next three years, Anders reduced the workforce by 71,000 people-44,000 through the divestiture of seven businesses and 27,000 through layoffs and attrition. Anders employed common E strategies.

Managers who subscribe to Theory O believe that if they were to focus exclusively on the price of their stock, they might harm their organizations. In this "soft" approach to change, the goal is to develop corporate culture and human capability through individual and organizational learning-the process of changing, obtaining feedback, reflecting, and making further changes. U.S. companies that adopt O strategies, as Hewlett-Packard did when its performance flagged in the 1980s, typically have strong, long-held, commitment-based psychological contracts with their employees.

Managers at these companies are likely to see the risks in breaking those contracts. Because they place a high value on employee commitment, Asian and European businesses are also more likely to adopt an O strategy to change.

Few companies subscribe to just one theory. Most companies we have studied have used a mix of both. But all too often, managers try to apply theories E and O in tandem without resolving the inherent tensions between them. This impulse to combine the strategies is directionally correct, but theories E and O are so different that it's hard to manage them simultaneously-employees distrust leaders who alternate between nurturing and cutthroat corporate behavior. Our research suggests, however, that there is a way to resolve the tension so that businesses can satisfy their shareholders while building viable institutions. Companies that effectively combine hard and soft approaches to change can reap big payoffs in profitability and productivity. Those companies are more likely to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. They can also reduce the anxiety that grips whole societies in the face of corporate restructuring.

In this article, we will explore how one company successfully resolved the tensions between E and O strategies. But before we do that, we need to look at just how different the two theories are.

A Tale of Two Theories

To understand how sharply theories E and O differ, we can compare them along several key dimensions of corporate change: goals, leadership, focus, process, reward system, and use of consultants. (For a side-by-side comparison, see the exhibit "Comparing Theories of Change.") We'll look at two companies in similar businesses that adopted almost pure forms of each archetype. Scott Paper successfully used Theory E to enhance shareholder value, while Champion International used Theory O to achieve a complete cultural transformation that increased its productivity and employee commitment. But as we will soon observe, both paper producers also discovered the limitations of sticking with only one theory of change. Let's compare the two companies' initiatives.

Comparing Theories of Change

Goals.

When Al Dunlap assumed leadership of Scott Paper in May 1994, he immediately fired 11,000 employees and sold off several businesses. His determination to restructure the beleaguered company was almost monomaniacal. As he said in one of his speeches: "Shareholders are the number one constituency. Show me an annual report that lists six or seven constituencies, and I'll show you a mismanaged company." From a shareholder's perspective, the results of Dunlap's actions were stunning. In just 20 months, he managed to triple shareholder returns as Scott Paper's market value rose from about $3 billion in 1994 to about $9 billion by the end of 1995. The financial community applauded his efforts and hailed Scott Paper's approach to change as a model for improving shareholder returns.

Champion's reform effort couldn't have been more different. CEO Andrew Sigler acknowledged that enhanced economic value was an appropriate target for management, but he believed that goal would be best achieved by transforming the behaviors of management, unions, and workers alike. In 1981, Sigler and other managers launched a long-term effort to restructure corporate culture around a new vision called the Champion Way, a set of values and principles designed to build up the competencies of the workforce. By improving the organization's capabilities in areas such as teamwork and communication, Sigler believed he could best increase employee productivity and thereby improve the bottom line.

Leadership.

Leaders who subscribe to Theory E manage change the old-fashioned way: from the top down. They set goals with little involvement from their management teams and certainly without input from lower levels or unions. Dunlap was clearly the commander in chief at Scott Paper. The executives who survived his purges, for example, had to agree with his philosophy that shareholder value was now the company's primary objective. Nothing made clear Dunlap's leadership style better than the nickname he gloried in: "Chainsaw Al."

By contrast, participation (a Theory O trait) was the hallmark of change at Champion. Every effort was made to get all its employees emotionally committed to improving the company's performance. Teams drafted value statements, and even the industry's unions were brought into the dialogue. Employees were encouraged to identify and solve problems themselves. Change at Champion sprouted from the bottom up.

Focus.

In E-type change, leaders typically focus immediately on streamlining the "hardware" of the organization-the structures and systems. These are the elements that can most easily be changed from the top down, yielding swift financial results. For instance, Dunlap quickly decided to outsource many of Scott Paper's corporate functions-benefits and payroll administration, almost all of its management information systems, some of its technology research, medical services, telemarketing, and security functions. An executive manager of a global merger explained the E rationale: "I have a [profit] goal of $176 million this year, and there's no time to involve others or develop organizational capability."

By contrast, Theory O's initial focus is on building up the "software" of an organization-the culture, behavior, and attitudes of employees. Throughout a decade of reforms, no employees were laid off at Champion. Rather, managers and employees were encouraged to collectively reexamine their work practices and behaviors with a goal of increasing productivity and quality. Managers were replaced if they did not conform to the new philosophy, but the overall firing freeze helped to create a culture of trust and commitment. Structural change followed once the culture changed. Indeed, by the mid-1990s, Champion had completely reorganized all its corporate functions. Once a hierarchical, functionally organized company, Champion adopted a matrix structure that empowered employee teams to focus more on customers.

Process.

Theory E is predicated on the view that no battle can be won without a clear, comprehensive, common plan of action that encourages internal coordination and inspires confidence among customers, suppliers, and investors. The plan lets leaders quickly motivate and mobilize their businesses; it compels them to take tough, decisive actions they presumably haven't taken in the past. The changes at Scott Paper unfolded like a military battle plan. Managers were instructed to achieve specific targets by specific dates. If they didn't adhere to Dunlap's tightly choreographed marching orders, they risked being fired.

Meanwhile, the changes at Champion were more evolutionary and emergent than planned and programmatic. When the company's decade-long reform began in 1981, there was no master blueprint. The idea was that innovative work processes, values, and culture changes in one plant would be adapted and used by other plants on their way through the corporate system. No single person, not even Sigler, was seen as the driver of change. Instead, local leaders took responsibility. Top management simply encouraged experimentation from the ground up, spread new ideas to other workers, and transferred managers of innovative units to lagging ones.

Reward System.

The rewards for managers in E-type change programs are primarily financial. Employee compensation, for example, is linked with financial incentives, mainly stock options. Dunlap's own compensation package-which ultimately netted him more than $100 million-was tightly linked to shareholders' interests. Proponents of this system argue that financial incentives guarantee that employees' interests match stockholders' interests. Financial rewards also help top executives feel compensated for a difficult job-one in which they are often reviled by their onetime colleagues and the larger community.

The O-style compensation systems at Champion reinforced the goals of culture change, but they didn't drive those goals. A skills-based pay system and a corporatewide gains-sharing plan were installed to draw union workers and management into a community of purpose. Financial incentives were used only as a supplement to those systems and not to push particular reforms. While Champion did offer a companywide bonus to achieve business goals in two separate years, this came late in the change process and played a minor role in actually fulfilling those goals.

Use of Consultants.

Theory E change strategies often rely heavily on external consultants. A SWAT team of Ivy League-educated MBAs, armed with an arsenal of state-of-the-art ideas, is brought in to find new ways to look at the business and manage it. The consultants can help CEOs get a fix on urgent issues and priorities. They also offer much-needed political and psychological support for CEOs who are under fire from financial markets. At Scott Paper, Dunlap engaged consultants to identify many of the painful cost-savings initiatives that he subsequently implemented.

Theory O change programs rely far less on consultants. The handful of consultants who were introduced at Champion helped managers and workers make their own business analyses and craft their own solutions. And while the consultants had their own ideas, they did not recommend any corporate program, dictate any solutions, or whip anyone into line. They simply led a process of discovery and learning that was intended to change the corporate culture in a way that could not be foreseen at the outset.

In their purest forms, both change theories clearly have their limitations. CEOs who must make difficult E-style choices understandably distance themselves from their employees to ease their own pain and guilt. Once removed from their people, these CEOs begin to see their employees as part of the problem. As time goes on, these leaders become less and less inclined to adopt O-style change strategies. They fail to invest in building the company's human resources, which inevitably hollows out the company and saps its capacity for sustained performance. At Scott Paper, for example, Dunlap trebled shareholder returns but failed to build the capabilities needed for sustained competitive advantage-commitment, coordination, communication, and creativity. In 1995, Dunlap sold Scott Paper to its longtime competitor Kimberly-Clark.

CEOs who embrace Theory O find that their loyalty and commitment to their employees can prevent them from making tough decisions. The temptation is to postpone the bitter medicine in the hopes that rising productivity will improve the business situation. But productivity gains aren't enough when fundamental structural change is required. That reality is underscored by today's global financial system, which makes corporate performance instantly transparent to large institutional shareholders whose fund managers are under enormous pressure to show good results. Consider Champion. By 1997, it had become one of the leaders in its industry based on most performance measures. Still, newly instated CEO Richard Olsen was forced to admit a tough reality: Champion shareholders had not seen a significant increase in the economic value of the company in more than a decade. Indeed, when Champion was sold recently to Finland-based UPM-Kymmene, it was acquired for a mere 1.5 times its original share value.

Managing the Contradictions

Clearly, if the objective is to build a company that can adapt, survive, and prosper over the years, Theory E strategies must somehow be combined with Theory O strategies. But unless they're carefully handled, melding E and O is likely to bring the worst of both theories and the benefits of neither. Indeed, the corporate changes we've studied that arbitrarily and haphazardly mixed E and O techniques proved destabilizing to the organizations in which they were imposed. Managers in those companies would certainly have been better off to pick either pure E or pure O strategies-with all their costs. At least one set of stakeholders would have benefited.

The obvious way to combine E and O is to sequence them. Some companies, notably General Electric, have done this quite successfully. At GE, CEO Jack Welch began his sequenced change by imposing an E-type restructuring. He demanded that all GE businesses be first or second in their industries. Any unit that failed that test would be fixed, sold off, or closed. Welch followed that up with a massive downsizing of the GE bureaucracy. Between 1981 and 1985, total employment at the corporation dropped from 412,000 to 299,000. Sixty percent of the corporate staff, mostly in planning and finance, was laid off. In this phase, GE people began to call Welch "Neutron Jack," after the fabled bomb that was designed to destroy people but leave buildings intact. Once he had wrung out the redundancies, however, Welch adopted an O strategy. In 1985, he started a series of organizational initiatives to change GE culture. He declared that the company had to become "boundaryless," and unit leaders across the corporation had to submit to being challenged by their subordinates in open forum. Feedback and open communication eventually eroded the hierarchy. Soon Welch applied the new order to GE's global businesses.

Unfortunately for companies like Champion, sequenced change is far easier if you begin, as Welch did, with Theory E. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that E would successfully follow O because of the sense of betrayal that would involve. It is hard to imagine how a draconian program of layoffs and downsizing can leave intact the psychological contract and culture a company has so patiently built up over the years. But whatever the order, one sure problem with sequencing is that it can take a very long time; at GE it has taken almost two decades. A sequenced change may also require two CEOs, carefully chosen for their contrasting styles and philosophies, which may create its own set of problems. Most turnaround managers don't survive restructuring-partly because of their own inflexibility and partly because they can't live down the distrust that their ruthlessness has earned them. In most cases, even the best- intentioned effort to rebuild trust and commitment rarely overcomes a bloody past. Welch is the exception that proves the rule.

So what should you do? How can you achieve rapid improvements in economic value while simultaneously developing an open, trusting corporate culture? Paradoxical as those goals may appear, our research shows that it is possible to apply theories E and O together. It requires great will, skill-and wisdom. But precisely because it is more difficult than mere sequencing, the simultaneous use of O and E strategies is more likely to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage.

One company that exemplifies the reconciliation of the hard and soft approaches is ASDA, the UK grocery chain that CEO Archie Norman took over in December 1991, when the retailer was nearly bankrupt. Norman laid off employees, flattened the organization, and sold off losing businesses-acts that usually spawn distrust among employees and distance executives from their people. Yet during Norman's eight-year tenure as CEO, ASDA also became famous for its atmosphere of trust and openness. It has been described by executives at Wal-Mart-itself famous for its corporate culture-as being "more like Wal-Mart than we are." Let's look at how ASDA resolved the conflicts of E and O along the six main dimensions of change.

Explicitly confront the tension between E and O goals.

With his opening speech to ASDA's executive team-none of whom he had met-Norman indicated clearly that he intended to apply both E and O strategies in his change effort. It is doubtful that any of his listeners fully understood him at the time, but it was important that he had no conflicts about recognizing the paradox between the two strategies for change. He said as much in his maiden speech: "Our number one objective is to secure value for our shareholders and secure the trading future of the business. I am not coming in with any magical solutions. I intend to spend the next few weeks listening and forming ideas for our precise direction... We need a culture built around common ideas and goals that include listening, learning, and speed of response, from the stores upwards. [But] there will be management reorganization. My objective is to establish a clear focus on the stores, shorten lines of communication, and build one team." If there is a contradiction between building a high-involvement organization and restructuring to enhance shareholder value, Norman embraced it.

Set direction from the top and engage people below.

From day one, Norman set strategy without expecting any participation from below. He said ASDA would adopt an everyday-low-pricing strategy, and Norman unilaterally determined that change would begin by having two experimental store formats up and running within six months. He decided to shift power from the headquarters to the stores, declaring: "I want everyone to be close to the stores. We must love the stores to death; that is our business." But even from the start, there was an O quality to Norman's leadership style. As he put it in his first speech: "First, I am forthright, and I like to argue. Second, I want to discuss issues as colleagues. I am looking for your advice and your disagreement." Norman encouraged dialogue with employees and customers through colleague and customer circles. He set up a "Tell Archie" program so that people could voice their concerns and ideas.

Historically, the study of change has been restricted to mature, large companies that needed to reverse their competitive declines. But the arguments we have advanced in this article also apply to entrepreneurial companies that need to manage rapid growth. Here, too, we believe that the most successful strategy for change will be one that combines theories E and O.

Just as there are two ways of changing, so there are two kinds of entrepreneurs. One group subscribes to an ideology akin to Theory E. Their primary goal is to prepare for a cash-out, such as an IPO or an acquisition by an established player. Maximizing market value before the cash-out is their sole and abiding purpose. These entrepreneurs emphasize shaping the firm's strategy, structure, and systems to build a quick, strong market presence. Mercurial leaders who drive the company using a strong top-down style are typically at the helm of such companies. They lure others to join them using high-powered incentives such as stock options. The goal is to get rich quick.

Other entrepreneurs, however, are driven by an ideology more akin to Theory O-the building of an institution. Accumulating wealth is important, but it is secondary to creating a company that is based on a deeply held set of values and that has a strong culture. These entrepreneurs are likely to subscribe to an egalitarian style that invites everyone's participation. They look to attract others who share their passion about the cause-though they certainly provide generous stock options as well. The goal in this case is to make a difference, not just to make money.

Many people fault entrepreneurs who are driven by a Theory E view of the world. But we can think of other entrepreneurs who have destroyed businesses because they were overly wrapped up in the Theory O pursuit of a higher ideal and didn't pay attention to the pragmatics of the market. Steve Jobs's venture, Next, comes to mind. Both types of entrepreneurs have to find some way of tapping the qualities of theories E and O, just as large companies do.

Making way for opposite leadership styles was also an essential ingredient to Norman's-and ASDA's-success. This was most clear in Norman's willingness to hire Allan Leighton shortly after he took over. Leighton eventually became deputy chief executive. Norman and Leighton shared the same E and O values, but they had completely different personalities and styles. Norman, cool and reserved, impressed people with the power of his mind-his intelligence and business acumen. Leighton, who is warmer and more people oriented, worked on employees' emotions with the power of his personality. As one employee told us, "People respect Archie, but they love Allan." Norman was the first to credit Leighton with having helped to create emotional commitment to the new ASDA. While it might be possible for a single individual to embrace opposite leadership styles, accepting an equal partner with a very different personality makes it easier to capitalize on those styles. Leighton certainly helped Norman reach out to the organization. Together they held quarterly meetings with store managers to hear their ideas, and they supplemented those meetings with impromptu talks.

Focus simultaneously on the hard and soft sides of the organization.

Norman's immediate actions followed both the E goal of increasing economic value and the O goal of transforming culture. On the E side, Norman focused on structure. He removed layers of hierarchy at the top of the organization, fired the financial officer who had been part of ASDA's disastrous policies, and decreed a wage freeze for everyone-management and workers alike. But from the start, the O strategy was an equal part of Norman's plan. He bought time for all this change by warning the markets that financial recovery would take three years. Norman later said that he spent 75% of his early months at ASDA as the company's human resource director, making the organization less hierarchical, more egalitarian, and more transparent. Both Norman and Leighton were keenly aware that they had to win hearts and minds. As Norman put it to workers: "We need to make ASDA a great place for everyone to work."

Plan for spontaneity.

Training programs, total-quality programs, and top-driven culture change programs played little part in ASDA's transformation. From the start, the ASDA change effort was set up to encourage experimentation and evolution. To promote learning, for example, ASDA set up an experimental store that was later expanded to three stores. It was declared a risk-free zone, meaning there would be no penalties for failure. A cross-functional task force "renewed," or redesigned, ASDA's entire retail proposition, its organization, and its managerial structure. Store managers were encouraged to experiment with store layout, employee roles, ranges of products offered, and so on. The experiments produced significant innovations in all aspects of store operations. ASDA's managers learned, for example, that they couldn't renew a store unless that store's management team was ready for new ideas. This led to an innovation called the Driving Test, which assessed whether store managers' skills in leading the change process were aligned with the intended changes. The test perfectly illustrates how E and O can come together: it bubbled up O-style from the bottom of the company, yet it bound managers in an E-type contract. Managers who failed the test were replaced.

Let incentives reinforce change, not drive it.

Any synthesis of E and O must recognize that compensation is a double-edged sword. Money can focus and motivate managers, but it can also hamper teamwork, commitment, and learning. The way to resolve this dilemma is to apply Theory E incentives in an O way. Employees' high involvement is encouraged to develop their commitment to change, and variable pay is used to reward that commitment. ASDA's senior executives were compensated with stock options that were tied to the company's value. These helped attract key executives to ASDA. Unlike most E-strategy companies, however, ASDA had a stock-ownership plan for all employees. In addition, store-level employees got variable pay based on both corporate performance and their stores' records. In the end, compensation represented a fair exchange of value between the company and its individual employees. But Norman believed that compensation had not played a major role in motivating change at the company.

Use consultants as expert resources who empower employees.

Consultants can provide specialized knowledge and technical skills that the company doesn't have, particularly in the early stages of organizational change. Management's task is figuring out how to use those resources without abdicating leadership of the change effort. ASDA followed the middle ground between Theory E and Theory O. It made limited use of four consulting firms in the early stages of its transformation. The consulting firms always worked alongside management and supported its leadership of change. However, their engagement was intentionally cut short by Norman to prevent ASDA and its managers from becoming dependent on the consultants. For example, an expert in store organization was hired to support the task force assigned to renew ASDA's first few experimental stores, but later stores were renewed without his involvement.

By embracing the paradox inherent in simultaneously employing E and O change theories, Norman and Leighton transformed ASDA to the advantage of its shareholders and employees. The organization went through personnel changes, unit sell-offs, and hierarchical upheaval. Yet these potentially destructive actions did not prevent ASDA's employees from committing to change and the new corporate culture because Norman and Leighton had won employees' trust by constantly listening, debating, and being willing to learn. Candid about their intentions from the outset, they balanced the tension between the two change theories.

By 1999, the company had multiplied shareholder value eightfold. The organizational capabilities built by Norman and Leighton also gave ASDA the sustainable competitive advantage that Dunlap had been unable to build at Scott Paper and that Sigler had been unable to build at Champion. While Dunlap was forced to sell a demoralized and ineffective organization to Kimberly-Clark, and while a languishing Champion was sold to UPM-Kymmene, Norman and Leighton in June 1999 found a friendly and culturally compatible suitor in Wal-Mart, which was willing to pay a substantial premium for the organizational capabilities that ASDA had so painstakingly developed.

In the end, the integration of theories E and O created major change-and major payoffs-for ASDA. Such payoffs are possible for other organizations that want to develop a sustained advantage in today's economy. But that advantage can come only from a constant willingness and ability to develop organizations for the long term combined with a constant monitoring of shareholder value-E dancing with O, in an unending minuet.

A version of this article appeared in the May-June 2000 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until now, change in business has been an either-or proposition: either quickly create economic value for shareholders or patiently develop an open, trusting corporate culture long term. But new research indicates that combining these "hard" and "soft" approaches can radically transform the way businesses change.

# data[].attributes.body
Peter H. C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Videndeling og den personlige dimension. Peter H. C

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I spidsen for forandringer - Kotter volume 2.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Der er brug for flere ledere, hvis organisationerne skal følge med omverdenens forandringshastighed. Sådan lyder det kontant fra førende ekspert inden for forandringsledelse, John Kotter. Det kræver en ny organisationsstruktur, hvor medarbejderne skal involveres i strategiarbejdet. Læs her Kotters otte bud til ledere, der vil gøre deres organisationer forandringsparate.

# data[].attributes.body
Jan Rosenmeier er meget inspireret af Spotify ... faktisk ligner det lidt ALC-logikken, som dog også har meget at lære af Spotify ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spotify Engineering Culture (by Henrik Kniberg)

# data[].attributes.body
KL hvidbog

# data[].attributes.body
Forankring af forandringer
af Jan Rosenmeier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ALC - SCRUM - AGILITET af Jan Rosenmeier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perhaps the greatest challenge business leaders face today is how to stay competitive amid constant turbulence and disruption.

Any company that has made it past the start-up stage is optimized for efficiency rather than for strategic agility-the ability to capitalize on opportunities and dodge threats with speed and assurance. I could give you 100 examples of companies that, like Borders and RIM, recognized the need for a big strategic move but couldn't pull themselves together to make it and ended up sitting by as nimbler competitors ate their lunch. The examples always play out the same way: An organization that's facing a real threat or eyeing a new opportunity tries-and fails-to cram through some sort of major transformation using a change process that worked in the past. But the old ways of setting and implementing strategy are failing us.

We can't keep up with the pace of change, let alone get ahead of it. At the same time, the stakes-financial, social, environmental, political-are rising. The hierarchical structures and organizational processes we have used for decades to run and improve our enterprises are no longer up to the task of winning in this faster-moving world. In fact, they can actually thwart attempts to compete in a marketplace where discontinuities are more frequent and innovators must always be ready to face new problems. Companies used to reconsider their strategies only rarely. Today any company that isn't rethinking its direction at least every few years-as well as constantly adjusting to changing contexts-and then quickly making significant operational changes is putting itself at risk. But, as any number of business leaders can attest, the tension between needing to stay ahead of increasingly fierce competition and needing to deliver this year's results can be overwhelming.

What to do, then?

We cannot ignore the daily demands of running a company, which traditional hierarchies and managerial processes can still do very well. What they do not do well is identify the most important hazards and opportunities early enough, formulate creative strategic initiatives nimbly enough, and implement them fast enough.

The existing structures and processes that together form an organization's operating system need an additional element to address the challenges produced by mounting complexity and rapid change. The solution is a second operating system, devoted to the design and implementation of strategy, that uses an agile, networklike structure and a very different set of processes. The new operating system continually assesses the business, the industry, and the organization, and reacts with greater agility, speed, and creativity than the existing one. It complements rather than overburdens the traditional hierarchy, thus freeing the latter to do what it's optimized to do. It actually makes enterprises easier to run and accelerates strategic change. This is not an "either or" idea. It's "both and." I'm proposing two systems that operate in concert.

The strategy system has its roots in familiar structures, practices, and thinking. Many start-ups, for example, are organized more as networks than as hierarchies, because they need to be nimble and creative in order to grab opportunities. Even in mature organizations, informal networks of change agents frequently operate under the hierarchical radar. What I am describing also echoes much of the most interesting management thinking of the past few decades-from Michael Porter's wake-up call that organizations need to pay attention to strategy much more explicitly and frequently, to Clayton Christensen's insights about how poorly traditionally organized companies handle the technological discontinuities inherent in a faster-moving world, to recent work by the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011) describing the brain as two coordinated systems, one more emotional and one more rational.

The new strategy system also expands on the eight-step method I first documented 15 years ago (in Leading Change), while studying successful large-scale change: establishing a sense of urgency, creating a guiding coalition, developing a change vision, communicating the vision for buy-in, empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, never letting up, and incorporating changes into the culture.

There are three main differences between those eight steps and the eight "accelerators" on which the strategy system runs: (1) The steps are often used in rigid, finite, and sequential ways, in effecting or responding to episodic change, whereas the accelerators are concurrent and always at work. (2) The steps are usually driven by a small, powerful core group, whereas the accelerators pull in as many people as possible from throughout the organization to form a "volunteer army." (3) The steps are designed to function within a traditional hierarchy, whereas the accelerators require the flexibility and agility of a network.

For a long time companies could invest all their energy and resources in doing one new thing very well: They might spend two years setting up a large IT project that required many changes and then, after a long pause, spend five years developing a propensity for risk-taking in the product development function. They could put the eight-step process to work and then pack it away until it was needed again. But that methodology has a hard time producing excellent results in a faster-changing world.

Today companies must constantly seek competitive advantage without disrupting daily operations. Sure, industries face varying levels of turmoil, but what smart company isn't worried about being disintermediated, out-Googled, or otherwise made irrelevant-and how many are successfully doing something about it? In fact, the whole notion of "strategy"-a word that is now used loosely to cover sporadic planning around what businesses to be in and important policies concerning how to compete in those businesses-has to evolve. Strategy should be viewed as a dynamic force that constantly seeks opportunities, identifies initiatives that will capitalize on them, and completes those initiatives swiftly and efficiently. I think of that force as an ongoing process of "searching, doing, learning, and modifying," and of the eight accelerators as the activities that inform strategy and bring it to life. The network and the accelerators can serve as a continuous and holistic strategic change function-one that accelerates momentum and agility because it never stops. They impart a kind of strategic "fitness": The more the organization exercises its strategy skills, the more adept it becomes at dealing with a hypercompetitive environment. The network and the hierarchy, functioning as a dual operating system, can produce more wealth, better products and services, and a more exciting place to work in an era of exponential change.

The Limits of Hierarchy and Conventional Change Management

Hierarchies are useful. They let us sort work into departments, product divisions, regions, and the like with expertise, time-tested procedures, and clear reporting relationships and accountability so that we can do what we know how to do with efficiency, predictability, and effectiveness. Hierarchies are directed by familiar managerial processes for planning, budgeting, defining jobs, hiring and firing, and measuring results.

We have learned how to improve our hierarchy-based businesses. We launch initiatives to take on new tasks and improve performance on old ones. We have learned how to identify new problems, find and analyze data in a dynamic marketplace, build business cases for change, and gain approval. We have learned to execute by adding task forces, tiger teams, project-management and change-management departments, executive sponsors for new initiatives, and associated measurement and incentive schemes. We can do this while taking care of the day-to-day work of the organization because this change methodology is easily accommodated by the hierarchical structure and basic managerial processes. It works especially well if we make the structure less bureaucratic, with fewer layers and fewer questionable rules, and give more discretion to people who sit lower in the hierarchy. This methodology can deal with both tactical and strategic issues in a changing world-but only up to a point.

The old methodology simply can't handle rapid change. Hierarchies and standard managerial processes, even when minimally bureaucratic, are inherently risk-averse and resistant to change. Part of the problem is political: Managers are loath to take chances without permission from superiors. Part of the problem is cultural: People cling to their habits and fear loss of power and stature-two essential elements of hierarchies. And part of the problem is that all hierarchies, with their specialized units, rules, and optimized processes, crave stability and default to doing what they already know how to do. (These characteristics are even more pronounced when you pile one hierarchy on top of another to create a matrixed organization.)

Moreover, strategy implementation methodologies, hung on the hierarchical spine, are not up to the challenge of managing speedy transformation. Change management typically relies on tools-such as diagnostic assessments and analyses, communications techniques, and training modules-that can be invaluable in helping with episodic problems for which there are relatively straightforward solutions, such as implementing a well-tested financial reporting system. These approaches are effective when it is clear that you need to move from point A to a well-defined point B; the distance between the two is not galactic; and pushback from employees will not prove to be herculean. Change-management processes supplement the system we know. They can slide easily into a project-management organization. They can be made stronger or faster by adding more resources, more-sophisticated versions of the same old methods, or smarter people to drive the process-but again, only up to a point. After that point, using this approach to launch strategic initiatives that ask an organization to absorb more change faster can create confusion, resistance, fatigue, and higher costs.

Complementary Systems

Mounting complexity and rapid change create strategic challenges that even a souped-up hierarchy can't handle. That's why the dual operating system-a management-driven hierarchy working in concert with a strategy network-works so remarkably well.

At the heart of the dual operating system are five principles:

Many change agents, not just the usual few appointees.

To move faster and further, you need to pull more people than ever before into the strategic change game, but in a way that is economically realistic. That means not large numbers of full-time or even part-time appointments but volunteers. And 10% of the managerial and employee population is both plenty and possible.

Head and heart, not just head.

People won't want to do a day job in the hierarchy and a night job in the network-which is essentially how a dual operating system works-if you appeal only to logic, with numbers and business cases. You must appeal to their emotions, too. You must speak to their genuine desire to contribute to positive change and to take an enterprise in strategically smart ways into a better future, giving greater meaning and purpose to their work.

Much more leadership, not just more management.

At the core of a successful hierarchy is competent management. A strategy network, by contrast, needs lots of leadership, which means it operates with different processes and language and expectations. The game is all about vision, opportunity, agility, inspired action, and celebration-not project management, budget reviews, reporting relationships, compensation, and accountability to a plan.

Two systems, one organization.

The network and the hierarchy must be inseparable, with a constant flow of information and activity between them-an approach that works in part because the volunteers in the network all work within the hierarchy. (See the exhibit "Two Structures, One Organization.") The dual operating system is not two supersilos, like the old Xerox PARC (an amazing strategic innovation machine) and Xerox (which pretty much ignored PARC and the commercial opportunities it uncovered).

Traditional hierarchies and processes, which together form an organization's "operating system," do a great job of handling the operational needs of most companies, but they are too rigid to adjust to the quick shifts in today's marketplace. The most agile, innovative companies add a second operating system, built on a fluid, networklike structure, to continually formulate and implement strategy. The second operating system runs on its own processes (see sidebar "The Eight Accelerators,") and is staffed by volunteers from throughout the company.

Governed by these principles, the strategy network can be incredibly flexible and adaptable; the accelerators can drive problem solving, collaboration, and creativity; and the people doing this work-the volunteer army-will be focused, committed, and passionate.

The network is like a solar system, with a guiding coalition as the sun, strategic initiatives as planets, and subinitiatives as moons (or even satellites). This structure is dynamic: Initiatives and subinitiatives coalesce and disband as needed. Although a typical hierarchy tends not to change from year to year, the network can morph with ease. In the absence of bureaucratic layers, command-and-control prohibitions, and Six Sigma processes, this type of network permits a level of individualism, creativity, and innovation that not even the least bureaucratic hierarchy can provide. Populated with employees from all across the organization and up and down its ranks, the network liberates information from silos and hierarchical layers and enables it to flow with far greater freedom and accelerated speed.

The hierarchy differs from almost every other hierarchy today in one very important way: All the junk ordinarily pasted on it for tackling big strategic initiatives-work streams, tiger teams, strategy departments-has been shifted over to the network. That leaves the hierarchy less encumbered and able to perform better and faster what it is designed for: doing today's job well, making incremental changes to further improve efficiency, and handling the small initiatives that help a company deal with predictable adjustments such as routine IT upgrades.

The strategy network meshes with the hierarchy as an equal. It is not a super task force that reports to some level in the hierarchy. It is seamlessly connected to and coordinated with the hierarchy in a number of ways, chiefly through the people who populate both systems. Still, the organization's leaders play an important role in launching and maintaining the network: the C-suite or executive committee must create it (more on that later) and explicitly bless and support it. The network cannot be viewed as a rogue operation. It must be treated as a legitimate part of the organization, or the hierarchy will crush it.

The Eight Accelerators

These are the processes that enable the strategy network to function:

The processes that enable the strategy network to function

1. Create a sense of urgency around a single big opportunity.

This is absolutely critical to heightening the organization's awareness that it needs continual strategic adjustments and that they should always be aligned with the biggest opportunity in sight. Urgency starts at the top of the hierarchy, and it is important that executives keep acknowledging and reinforcing it so that people will wake up every morning determined to find some action they can take in their day to move toward that opportunity.

Sufficient urgency around a strategically rational and emotionally exciting opportunity is the bedrock upon which all else is built. In my original work 15 years ago, I found that ridding an organization of complacency was important. In my more recent work, I've seen ongoing urgency emerge as a strong competitive advantage. It can galvanize a volunteer army and keep the dual operating system in good working order. It moves managers to focus on opportunities and allow the network to grow for the benefit of the organization. Without an abiding sense of urgency, no chance of creating a grander business will survive.

For clients, my team has begun by having the executive committee take a first pass at articulating the strategic opportunity. This makes sense because its members are in a position to see the big picture and because their role in nurturing the dual structure is vital-particularly in the early days, when it is most vulnerable to the forces of resistance. (For the story of how one sales executive at a technology firm created urgency, see the sidebar "The Dual Operating System in Practice.")

Paul Davidson, a sales executive for a B2B technology firm (I've disguised his name and some company details), had seen sales growth slip for a number of years. When his division started to lose market share, he commissioned an outside study, which recommended both a new strategy and an implementation process that Davidson judged to be too rigid and complex for the kind of rapid change needed. So he persuaded his division head and the CEO to support a more dynamic approach to change.

Davidson knew much of what he wanted: a less costly sales operation, a broader range of distributors, the ability to move into the marketplace faster, and more focus on high-growth Asian markets. To get started on making those changes, he convened the sales division's executive committee for a daylong meeting and charged it with creating a statement of opportunity. I can't share the statement (my team worked with Davidson), but here are its main points:

We have an opportunity to increase our sales growth by 50% or more in two years, and to become the number one sales organization in the industry.

This is possible because (1) customer needs are changing, requiring competitors to change (but it is not guaranteed that they will change fast enough), (2) markets in developing countries are starting to explode, and (3) we are not operating at peak efficiency within the company.

We have not changed fast enough to keep up with external demands, even though we have great people. We are capable of changing faster-we've done it in the past.

We can create a very successful field organization that we're deeply proud of.

Davidson put the eight accelerators to work for his company. First he pulled together an "urgency team" made up of 20 volunteers from across the field organization who had credibility and who had embraced the opportunity statement-intellectually and emotionally-as soon as they heard it. This group agreed to an ambitious goal: getting buy-in from at least 50% of the 1,500-member sales division. The urgency team spent three months devising dozens of ideas for forging a broad understanding of, passion for, and commitment to the opportunity. It organized meetings, created support materials, and built an intranet portal filled with information, videos, blogs, and stories about the ways in which individuals on the sales team were already changing.

Next the urgency team, working with the executive committee, invited employees to apply for a role in the guiding coalition. The application form asked why they wanted to be on the GC, how they planned to manage the additional workload, and more. About 210 people applied, and 36 were selected, mostly-but not entirely-from middle management and below. They functioned without a formal leader, though a facilitator organized meetings and phone calls. Despite initial awkwardness about the range of formal status across the GC, a new organizational logic arose: For any given activity, the people with the relevant information, connections, motivation, and skills took the lead.

With input from top management, the outside study, and colleagues throughout the organization, the GC developed a vision and a strategy. The vision statement is confidential, but it said roughly this: "Within 12 months we will be using intermediaries successfully more than we ever have; our growth rate in emerging markets will be at least twice what it is today; we will have developed a discipline around innovation; and decision-making time will be cut in half, from a month to two weeks. We will be a proud, passionate group, still gaining momentum to make us the most admired sales organization and the best place to work in the industry." The statement was perfectly rational, but there was also a lot of heart in it.

The guiding coalition then took a first pass at identifying specific initiatives. Its members agreed on five, including attracting and hiring outstanding people with Asian experience, and making the product-introduction process faster and more efficient. The vision and list of initiatives went first to the executive committee, which was generally enthusiastic but worried that the GC might be taking on too much too fast. The GC extended the timetable on one of its initiatives and went to work.

The original urgency team's methods helped the GC take the vision and the strategy to the entire field organization, using training, communications tools, the portal, and face-to-face conversations, which proved to be particularly powerful. The more team members talked to colleagues, the more excited people became. I was at one lunch where a GC member spoke, and as the group broke up, the man next to me said, "For the first time ever, I understand where we need to go, and how. And it really makes sense!"

Six months in, the GC had five major initiatives in place, each of which had from one to six subinitiatives. The initiative to hire excellent people in Asia, for example, sprouted a subinitiative to bring new people up to speed more quickly. The focus was on eliminating barriers to accelerated movement in the right direction.

The people involved talked, e-mailed, and met as needed to get the work done. In the main GC meetings, members reported progress, shared information, solicited ideas, and asked for help ("Who has experience with the Japanese market?"). Senior managers helped to ensure that lower-level employees got the information they needed to make smart decisions. Lower-level people added frontline information that ordinarily wouldn't have made it up the hierarchy to the executive committee.

The guiding coalition came up with a big, visible win six months into the process: It built a new, simplified IT tool at a remarkably low cost in a short period of time. (IT had been a time-consuming trouble spot.) First an initiative team interviewed users to understand why the existing system was failing; then it reached out to the volunteer army for expertise. One e-mail request for help, sent to 100 people, elicited 35 responses within four days. Salespeople and their managers loved the end product. Success with this single effort, observed in the field organization and broadcast on the portal, accelerated progress by removing a big barrier and boosted the dual operating system's credibility.

The company never let up. I have lost count of how many initiatives it has completed over the past three years and how many barriers have been removed. Many mistakes occurred along the way, but the system continues to improve, and version 2.0, now at the division level, is without a doubt more sophisticated than version 1.0.

The biggest accomplishments so far have been institutionalized in the hierarchical organization and integrated in daily operations. In cases where strategic changes don't fit some aspect of the company culture, the relevant team looks for ways to change the culture. To a large extent this happens naturally if the new approach produces better results; but sometimes changes are so big that nurturing is needed.

Three years after Davidson began to create a dual operating system, his field organization, and increasingly the entire division, are handling important issues in a new way. No one on the executive committee is overwhelmed by being appointed to help guide two or three strategic initiatives at once. Despite all the change, complaints about change fatigue in the core business are few.

The results are dramatic. The system has accelerated the creation of new partnerships, new ways of dealing with direct customers, a faster product-introduction process, shorter response times on complaints, superior data for the product development group on shifting customer needs, and faster growth in Asia-it was up by more than 60% in 2011, compared with 25% three years ago. And the division has started to win back market share, which the financial community has rewarded with a 55% increase in the company's market cap.

These are still early days. If the dual operating system is to achieve its true potential, it must spread to the entire enterprise. I think it will. That's when the company will become a model of both strategic agility and short-term efficiency: Today's results will grow stronger and stronger while the whole organization works together to sense threats and respond to them before it's too late-and, more important, to seize and exploit opportunities at a pace that will ensure that it flourishes for years to come.

2. Build and maintain a guiding coalition.

The core of a strategy network is the guiding coalition (GC), which is made up of volunteers from throughout the organization. In my work with clients, people fill out applications to be on the GC. With a sufficient sense of urgency, you may get 10 times as many applications as there are roles in the network's core.

The GC is selected to represent each of the hierarchy's departments and levels, with a broad range of skills. It must be made up of people whom the leadership trusts, and must include at least a few outstanding leaders and managers. This ensures that the GC can gather and process information as no hierarchy ever could.

All members of the GC are equal; no internal hierarchy slows down the transfer of information. The coalition can see inside and outside the enterprise, knows the details and the big picture, and uses all this information to make good enterprisewide decisions about which strategic initiatives to launch and how best to do so. The social dynamics of the GC may be uncomfortable at first, but once a team learns how to operate well, most members seem to love being part of it.

3. Formulate a strategic vision and develop change initiatives designed to capitalize on the big opportunity.

The vision will serve as a strategic true north for the dual operating system. A well-formulated vision is focused on taking advantage of a big make-or-break opportunity. (If no such opportunity exists, because you operate in a rare pocket of competitive stability, you may not need this system quite yet. But keep your eyes open: That situation won't last.) The right vision is feasible and easy to communicate. It is emotionally appealing as well as strategically smart. And it gives the GC a picture of success and enough information and direction to make consequential decisions on the fly, without having to seek permission at every turn.

In creating one company's vision statement, the guiding coalition sought input from top management, a consultant's report, and colleagues throughout the organization. The vision statement described what the sales group, which was dealing with market losses, could look like in a year if it accelerated toward a big opportunity. It outlined pragmatic goals but framed them with emotional resonance, using words such as "proud," "passionate," and "admired." As a result, the group vowed to work better with partners, double growth in emerging markets, innovate constantly, and halve the time it took to make decisions.

Next the GC identified the five strategic initiatives that its members deemed critical to achieving the vision and that they wanted very much to work on, including "innovation in attacking growing markets." Inspired by the vision and guided by the initiatives that flowed logically from it, everyone within the network became an author of strategic change. That's very powerful.

To keep the two parts of a dual operating system connected and aligned, we have found, the GC must show a draft of the vision and initiatives to the organization's executive committee for comments. A well-functioning GC will treat the committee's comments as highly valuable input but won't automatically accept them as commands.

4. Communicate the vision and the strategy to create buy-in and attract a growing volunteer army.

A vividly formulated, high-stakes vision and strategy, promulgated by a GC in ways that are both memorable and authentic, will prompt people to discuss them without the cynicism that often greets messages cascading down the hierarchy. Done right, with creativity, such communications can go viral, attracting employees who buy in to the ambition of the message and begin to share a commitment to it.

This point tends to prompt skepticism from people who have seen attempts to motivate a workforce fail. But if the right messages are sent from a passionate GC to colleagues who feel a sense of urgency, the volunteer army will start to gather. I've seen it happen. Motivation is an issue when people are forced to work in boxes within a hierarchy where workers become bored, new ideas aren't welcome, and managers aren't effective. And it does not take many volunteers to get a network launched: Again, 10% of the total employee population will do. That's 500 people in an organization of 5,000.

5. Accelerate movement toward the vision and the opportunity by ensuring that the network removes barriers.

Perhaps a sales rep has gotten customer complaints about bureaucratic hang-ups. He doesn't know how to fix the problem and doesn't have time to think about it. Someone in the network gets wind of this and says, "I've seen that. I volunteer. I'll put together a group and attack it." That person writes up a description and sends it out to the volunteer army, and five people immediately step forward. They set up a call to begin learning why this is happening, figuring out how to remove the barrier, and designing a solution-a better CRM system, perhaps. The team probably includes someone from IT who has technical expertise and can help identify where the money for the new system might come from. The team works with additional volunteers who have relevant information-from whatever quarter may be germane-to act quickly and efficiently. The time between the first call and this point might be two weeks-a model of accelerated action. The network team settles on a practical solution that properly supports the sales team. Then its members take their thinking to the CIO, who gives feedback and may offer the budget and the resources.

Design and implementation occur in the network and are instituted within the hierarchy. And if the network is truly operating hand-in-glove with the hierarchy, the people in the hierarchy are champing at the bit to get the new CRM system.

6. Celebrate visible, significant short-term wins.

A strategy network's credibility won't last long without confirmation that its decisions and actions are actually benefiting the organization. Skeptics will erect obstacles unless they see proof that the dual operating system is creating real results. And people have only so much patience, so proof must come quickly. To ensure success, the best short-term wins should be obvious, unambiguous, and clearly related to the vision. Celebrating those wins will buoy the volunteer army and prompt more employees to buy in. Success breeds success.

If wins are not forthcoming, that in itself is useful feedback: Something is wrong. A committed GC, with many eyes and ears to take in the reality of the situation and with no status or territory to protect, can quickly tweak either the decisions it has made or the methods used for implementing those decisions.

7. Never let up. Keep learning from experience. Don't declare victory too soon.

Organizations must continue to carry through on strategic initiatives and create new ones, to adapt to shifting business environments, and thus to enhance their competitive positions. When an organization takes its foot off the gas, cultural and political resistance arise.

Here, again, is why urgency is so central to the strategy part of the dual operating system. It keeps people going. If it is weak to begin with, or neglected, the volunteer army's determination will flag, and the temptation to slow down or stop will become irresistible. The volunteers will start focusing on their work in the hierarchy, and the hierarchy will dominate once more.

8. Institutionalize strategic changes in the culture.

No strategic initiative, big or small, is complete until it has been incorporated into day-to-day activities. A new direction or method must sink into the very culture of the enterprise-and it will do so if the initiative produces visible results and sends your organization into a strategically better future.

The Volunteer Army

The members of the volunteer army also help make the daily business of the organization hum; they're not a separate group of consultants, new hires, or task force appointees. They have organizational knowledge, relationships, credibility, and influence. They understand the need for change-they are often the first to see threats or opportunities-and have the zeal to implement it.

It is vital that this army be made up of individuals who bring energy, commitment, and genuine enthusiasm. They are not a bunch of grunts carrying out orders from the brass. Rather, they are change leaders. Whereas hierarchies require management to maintain an efficient status quo, networks demand leadership from every individual within them.

People who have never seen this sort of dual operating system work often worry, quite logically, that a bunch of enthusiastic volunteers might create more problems than they solve-by, for example, running off and making not very thoughtful decisions and disrupting daily operations. Here is where the very specific details built into the network and the accelerators come into play. This second system not only creates the army but guides the volunteers with a structure and processes that create a powerful, smart, and increasingly needed strategic force.

In organizations where the volunteer army has really taken hold, individuals have told me that the rewards are tremendous-though rarely monetary. They talk about the fulfillment they get from pursuing a mission they believe in. They appreciate the chance to collaborate with a broader array of people than they ever could have before. A number of them say that their strategy work led to increased visibility across the organization and to bigger jobs in the hierarchy. And their managers appreciate how the volunteers develop professionally. In June 2012 I got this e-mail message from a client in Europe: "I can't believe how quickly this second operating system gives growth to real talents within the organization. Once people feel 'Yes, I can do it!' they also start faster growth in their regular jobs in the hierarchy, which helps make today's operations more effective."

Building Momentum

Over the past three years I've aided eight organizations, private and public, in building dual operating systems, and the challenges have been fairly predictable. One is how to ensure that the two parts work together and don't drift apart. Here it is essential that the GC and the executive committee maintain close communication. Another is how to build momentum: Most important is to communicate wins from the very start. Probably the biggest challenge is how to make people who are accustomed to a control-oriented hierarchy believe that a dual system is even possible. Again, this is why a rational and compelling sense of urgency around a big strategic opportunity is so important. Once it has been sparked, mobilizing the GC and putting the remaining accelerators in motion happens almost organically.

A dual operating system doesn't start fully formed and doesn't require a sweeping overhaul of the organization. It grows over time, accelerates action over time, and takes on a life of its own that seems to differ from company to company in the details. It can start with small steps. Version 1.0 of a strategy network may arise in only one part of an enterprise. After it becomes a powerful accelerating force there, it can expand throughout the organization. Version 1.0 may play little or no role in strategy formulation but be involved, rather, in implementation. It may feel at first more like a big employee-engagement exercise that does, indeed, produce a much bigger payoff for the same size payroll. But the network and the accelerators evolve, and momentum comes faster than you might expect.

A Summary and a Prediction

Because a dual operating system evolves, it doesn't jolt the organization the way sudden dramatic change does. It doesn't require the organization to build something gigantic and then flick a switch to get it going. Think of it as a vast, purposeful expansion in scale, scope, and power of the smaller, informal networks that accomplish tasks faster and cheaper than hierarchies can.

The system offers a solution to problems we have known about for some time. People have been writing for at least 20 years about the increasing speed of business and the need for organizations to be quicker and much more agile. But who has been able to pull that off? The situation won't be improved by tweaking the usual methodology or adding turbochargers to a single hierarchical system. That's like trying to rebuild an elephant so that it can be both an elephant and a panther. It's never going to happen.

People have been writing for 50 years about unleashing human potential and directing the energy to big business challenges. But who, outside the world of start-ups, has succeeded? So few do because they're working within a system that basically asks most people to shut up, take orders, and do their jobs in a repetitive way.

People have been talking for a quarter of a century about the need for more leaders, because an organization's top two or three executives can no longer do it all. But very few jobs in traditional hierarchical organizations provide the information and the experience needed to become a leader. And the solutions available-courses on leadership, for example-are wholly inadequate, because most development of complex perspectives and skills happens on the job, not in the classroom.

People have been grumbling for years about the strategy consulting industry, whose reports fail to solve the problem of finding and implementing strategies to better fit a changing environment. A consultant's report-all thought and little heart, forecasting where you can flourish in two or five or 10 years, produced by smart outsiders, and acted on in a linear way by a limited number of appointed people-has little or no chance of success in a faster-moving, more uncertain world.

The inevitable failures of single operating systems hurt us now. They are going to kill us in the future. The 21st century will force us all to evolve toward a fundamentally new form of organization. I believe that I have basically described that form here. We still have much to learn. Nevertheless, the companies that get there first, because they act now, will see immediate and long-term success-for shareholders, customers, employees, and themselves. Those that lag will suffer greatly, if they survive at all.

A version of this article appeared in the November 2012 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perhaps the greatest challenge business leaders face today is how to stay competitive amid constant turbulence and disruption. Any company that has made it past the start-up stage is optimized for efficiency rather than for strategic agility-the ability to capitalize on opportunities and dodge threats with speed and assurance.

# data[].attributes.body
Artikel koster desværre 65;-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vi har siden 2006 arbejdet med Lean Administration i Kristelig Fagbevægelse. Vi har haft gode erfaringer med Lean Administration, der primært er implementeret i vores afdelingsnet bestående af 16 a-kasseafdelinger. Vores erfaringer har vist os, at Lean Administration indebærer en risiko for trade-offs på to helt afgørende områder: Medarbejdertrivsel og innovation. Vi har derfor siden 2008 arbejdet med at finde nye veje til imødegåelse af disse trade-offs sideløbende med fastholdelse og udvikling af Lean Administration. De indsigter, vi har nået, vil vi gerne dele med andre.

I Kristelig Fagbevægelse er vi taget ud på en rejse - drevet af vores nysgerrighed og ønske om hele tiden at blive bedre. Med udgangspunkt i Lean er vi gået på opdagelse i Appreciative Inquiry, herefter kun kaldet AI, og det har givet os nye vinkler på Lean og inspiration til arbejdet med at øge medarbejdertrivslen. Vi er kun lige begyndt på rejsen, men mærker allerede nu det berigende i brobygningen mellem lean og AI.

Som udgangspunkt har vi stillet os selv en række spørgsmål, som vi ønsker at svare på i løbet af artiklen: Hvordan kan vi komme videre i arbejdet med at leane vores administration? Hvordan opnår vi en større medarbejdertrivsel uden at give køb på Lean-principperne? Kan AI bruges hertil? Hvordan kobler vi i så fald Lean Administration og AI - og hvordan gør vi det helt konkret?

Med afsæt i spørgsmålene ønsker vi i artiklen at bidrage med fire tilgange: 1) En teoretisk tilgang til Lean Administration. 2) En udvidelse af teorien ved at give Lean Administration mere konkret indhold gennem et lean-hus og et lean-review. Vi beskriver det ved både at forholde os til byggestenene i huset, rækkefølgen huset skal bygges i og ikke mindst hvilket konkret indhold, der er i de enkelte byggesten. Indholdet i byggestenene uddyber vi derefter ved at lave en opskrift på et lean-review og ved at anvise de værktøjer, der skal til for at bygge huset. 3) Med udgangspunkt i kritikken af lean knytter vi an til AI. Det gør vi ved at give en teoretisk gennemgang af den anerkendende tilgang. Yderligere forholder vi os til relevant kritik af praksisanvendelsen af AI. I respekt for kritikken har vi udviklet vores egen variant af begrebet, som vi kalder anerkendende medarbejderdreven involvering - i daglig tale dog ofte blot AI. I resten af artiklen skal den læses som vores særlige variant. Og 4) Vi giver et bud på koblingen mellem AI og lean og eksemplificerer, hvordan vi bruger AI i vores Kaizen-tavle - altså i den medarbejderdrevne proces hvor der arbejdes med løbende forbedringer - for at øge medarbejdertrivslen i Kristelig Fagbevægelse.

Arbejdet med at koble AI og lean afspejles allerede i artiklens første afsnit, hvor lean Administration gennemgås. Her refereres til anerkendende ledelse, fortællinger af succeshistorier m.v. - tilgange som normalt ikke har en fremtrædende plads i Lean Administration, men som vi gradvist har integreret i vores Lean Administration. Mulige trade-offs i forhold til innovation berøres kun indirekte i denne artikel.

1. | Lean Administration som selvstændigt begreb

Lean-begrebet stammer fra Toyota-fabrikkerne i Japan og har sin oprindelse i filosofien Just-in-Time. Til at starte med blev princippet kaldt Toyota Production System. Womack, Jones & Roos skriver i 1990 deres skelsættende bog The Machine That Changed The World, og her kaldes begrebet for første gang lean. På dansk oversættes begrebet bedst til "trimmet produktion".

Lean Administration i sin begyndelse

Lean Administration er først vundet frem som selvstændigt begreb inden for de senere år. Begrebet lean har sit udspring i en fremstillingsvirksomhed, og det er principper fra produktion, der overføres til administration. Lean Administration er stadig i sin begyndelse. På dansk findes få bøger, der udelukkende handler om Lean Administration (f.eks. Eriksen et. al., 2006 og Tapping et. al., 2005).

2. | Teoriens tilgange til at arbejde med Lean Administration

Reducere spild i værdistrømmene

Grundtanken i lean er at forstå kunderne og i lyset af denne forståelse at eliminere spildet i værdistrømmene, men også bredere i organisationen. En værdistrøm er de aktiviteter, der gør, at leverancen kan leveres til kunden.

Værdi defineres altså ud fra kundens synsvinkel. Spild er derfor ikke-værdiskabende aktiviteter og uhensigtsmæssig organisering af arbejdet - begge dele set fra kundens synsvinkel.
Figur 1. Reducere spild i værdistrømmene. Eksempler på spild er taget fra Kristelig Fagbevægelse (en proces er i Kristelig Fagbevægelse en værdistrøm). Kilde: Kragh-Schmidt et. al., 2007, s. 3
2.1 | Kortlægning og forbedring af værdistrømme

Lean-tilgang via kortlægning af den enkelte værdistrøm

Der er flere måder at arbejde med Lean Administration. En måde er via kortlægning at søge at forbedre værdistrømmene. Her handler det om at:

Finde leverancefamilier (dvs. ensartede leverancer til kunden, hvor værdistrømmene kan struktureres på samme måde) og kortlægge værdistrømme

Se spild og uhensigtsmæssigheder

Designe nye værdistrømme med flow

Skabe visuel målstyring

Facilitere Kaizen

Arbejdsbogen Lean i service og administration - drejebog med 8 trin til kortlægning og forbedring af værdistrømme (Tapping et. al., 2005) har denne indgangsvinkel.

2.2 | Opbygning af et lean-hus

Lean-tilgang via fokus på helheden - "lean-huset"

En anden tilgang til at arbejde med Lean Administration er vha. et bredere lean-organiserings-koncept. Her er der fokus på helheden frem for på den enkelte værdistrøm. Lean sammenlignes i dette brede koncept med at bygge et hus. Det centrale er både det enkelte byggeelement, men også i hvilken rækkefølge byggeriet sker.

Den danske bog God Lean Ledelse i administration og service (Eriksen et. al., 2006) har denne indgangsvinkel.

Artiklen her tager udgangspunkt i den brede tilgang gennem lean-huset og beskriver teoretisk opbygningen af en Lean Administration.
Figur 2. Lean-huset i egen tilvirket form efter inspiration fra Eriksen et. al., 2006
3. | Lean-husets byggesten

Byggesten i rigtig rækkefølge

Lean-huset bygger videre på de fem grundlæggende principper, beskrevet af Womack og Jones.

Ideen med huset er, at lean skal bygges med en række byggesten og i den rigtige rækkefølge, og princippet er f.eks. illustreret i Eriksen et. al., 2006.

Anerkendende ledelse og involverende lean-kultur er kittet i huset

Vi ønsker at bidrage til udforskningen af Lean Administration vha. lean-huset og at hjælpe til at implementere principperne ved at lægge et ekstra lag bagved huset - nemlig at kittet i huset er ledelse og skabelse af en anerkendende lean-kultur. I det følgende illustrerer vi rækkefølgen, huset skal bygges i og angiver med nogle stikord indholdet i byggestenene. Indholdet konkretiseres og uddybes senere vha. et spørgeskema (lean-review).

3.1 | Husets fundament

Byggesten 1. Forstå kunderne

Huset skal have et solidt fundament, som yderligere styrkes af fundamentblokke, hvorpå der kan bygges sider og lægges tag.

Forstå kunderne og organisér værdistrømmene i lyset af den forståelse

Det fundamentale for en succesfuld implementering af Lean Administration er at forstå kunderne og organisere værdistrømmene i lyset af den leverance, kunden skal have. Hvis der ikke er forståelse for, hvad organisationen skal levere, kan arbejdet ikke gøres effektivt og uden spild. Indholdet i den første byggesten defineres ud fra følgende stikord:

Både ledelse og medarbejdere er bevidste om kundens behov

Hele virksomhedens organisering rettes ind efter kundens behov

Der organiseres med det formål at eliminere spild

Det betyder, at der i alle afdelinger og hos alle ledere og medarbejdere er en bevidsthed om, hvem kunden er - både den eksterne og interne - og at der skabes en direkte viden om kundens behov ved at spørge kunden direkte og ikke forlade sig på mavefornemmelser. Værdistrømme, indretning m.m. organiseres sådan, at kunden får præcist det, han efterspørger, og at for megen ventetid, unødig transporttid osv. - dvs. spild - undgås
Figur 4. Fundamentblokkene, jf. helheden i figur 2.
3.2 | De fire fundamentblokke

Byggesten 2. Standardisér

Standardisér er den første af fundamentblokkene. Standardisering sker f.eks. vha. beskrivelser, der bygger på medarbejdernes egne erfaringer af succes og best practice. Standarder sikrer ensartethed og mulighed for at afvikle de samme leverancer igen og igen og dermed øge volumen igennem værdistrømmene. Indholdet i byggesten 2 er følgende:

På baggrund af best practice opsættes der standarder for løsning af arbejdsopgaver og indretning af arbejdspladsen

Medarbejderne bruger standarderne og videreudvikler best practice på baggrund af deres erfaringer

Det er altså beskrevet, hvilke aktiviteter løsningen af de enkelte leverancer indeholder, rækkefølgen de skal laves i og det forventede tidsforbrug. Ved at bruge standarder er medarbejderne i stand til at forholde sig til, hvorvidt rækkefølgen i opgaveløsningen med fordel kan ændres, eller om en aktivitet helt kan fjernes, uden at løsningen bliver dårligere - og medarbejderne kan på den måde hele tiden udvikle best practice.

Byggesten 3. Planlæg og styr

Planlægning og styring sikrer effekt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vi har siden 2006 arbejdet med Lean Administration i Kristelig Fagbevægelse. Vi har haft gode erfaringer med Lean Administration, der primært er implementeret i vores afdelingsnet bestående af 16 a-kasseafdelinger. Vores erfaringer har vist os, at Lean Administration indebærer en risiko for trade-offs på to helt afgørende områder: Medarbejdertrivsel og innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
Dan Pink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RSA ANIMATE: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

# data[].attributes.headline
Toyota Kata - en anden tænkning om implementering 

# data[].attributes.subject
Toyota Kata - en anden tænkning om implementering 

# data[].attributes.body
Digitalisering genkalder minder om lean og svømmebaner m.v. - men lad os gribe det bedste fra den verden. Jan Rosenmeier har selv været med til at udvikle AI-Lean og Styrkebaseret Lean og finder meget inspiration hos Mike Rother. Tidligere Leanchef fra LEGO introducerede til denne tænkning - TAK - især første halvdel er god,
/ Rosenmeier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lean Summit 2012 - Mike Rother - Toyota Kata

# data[].attributes.body
Ophavsmanden ... Clayton himself

# data[].attributes.headline
10 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREThe Critical Few

# data[].attributes.subject
10 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREThe Critical Few

# data[].attributes.body
10 bud på hvordan man kan arbejde med kulturen af Jon Katzenbach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How often have you heard somebody - a new CEO, a journalist, a management consultant, a leadership guru, a fellow employee - talk about the urgent need to change the culture? They want to make it world-class. To dispense with all the nonsense and negativity that annoys employees and stops good intentions from growing into progress. To bring about an entirely different approach, starting immediately.

These culture critiques are as common as complaints about the weather - and about as effective. How frequently have you seen high-minded aspirations to "change the culture" actually manage to modify the way that people behave and the way in which they work? And how often have you seen noticeable long-term improvements?

What Is Corporate Culture?

At its worst, culture can be a drag on productivity. At its best, it is an emotional energizer. Here's how companies can use it to gain a competitive advantage.

If the answer to these last two questions is "rarely," it wouldn't surprise us. We don't believe that swift, wholesale culture change is possible - or even desirable. After all, a company's culture is its basic personality, the essence of how its people interact and work. However, it is an elusively complex entity that survives and evolves mostly through gradual shifts in leadership, strategy, and other circumstances. We find the most useful definition is also the simplest: Culture is the self-sustaining pattern of behavior that determines how things are done.

Made of instinctive, repetitive habits and emotional responses, culture can't be copied or easily pinned down. Corporate cultures are constantly self-renewing and slowly evolving: What people feel, think, and believe is reflected and shaped by the way they go about their business. Formal efforts to change a culture (to replace it with something entirely new and different) seldom manage to get to the heart of what motivates people, what makes them tick. Strongly worded memos from on high are deleted within hours. You can plaster the walls with large banners proclaiming new values, but people will go about their days, right beneath those signs, continuing with the habits that are familiar and comfortable.

But this inherent complexity shouldn't deter leaders from trying to use culture as a lever. If you cannot simply replace the entire machine, work on realigning some of the more useful cogs. The name of the game is making use of what you cannot change by using some of the emotional forces within your current culture differently.

Three dimensions of corporate culture affect its alignment: symbolic reminders (artifacts that are entirely visible), keystone behaviors (recurring acts that trigger other behaviors and that are both visible and invisible), and mind-sets (attitudes and beliefs that are widely shared but exclusively invisible). Of these, behaviors are the most powerful determinant of real change. What people actually do matters more than what they say or believe. And so to obtain more positive influences from your cultural situation, you should start working on changing the most critical behaviors - the mind-sets will follow. Over time, altered behavior patterns and habits can produce better results.

You may be asking: If it is so hard to change culture, why should we even bother to try? Because an organization's current culture contains several reservoirs of emotional energy and influence. Executives who work with them can greatly accelerate strategic and operating imperatives. When positive culture forces and strategic priorities are in sync, companies can draw energy from the way people feel. This accelerates a company's movement to gain competitive advantage, or regain advantages that have been lost.

Research shows that companies that use a few specific cultural catalysts - that is to say, those that use informal emotional approaches to influencing behavior - are significantly more likely to experience change that lasts. Of the companies that reported consciously using elements of their culture in Strategy&'s 2013 Global Culture & Change Management Survey, 70 percent said their firms achieved sustainable improvement in organizational pride and emotional commitment. That compares with 35 percent for firms that didn't use culture as a lever. Although there is no magic formula, no brilliant algorithm, no numerical equation that will guarantee results, we have gleaned some valuable insights through decades of research and observation at dozens of enterprises, including some of the most successful companies in the world. By adopting the following principles, your organization can learn to deploy and improve its culture in a manner that will increase the odds of financial and operational success.

1. Work with and within your current cultural situations. Deeply embedded cultures cannot be replaced with simple upgrades, or even with major overhaul efforts. Nor can your culture be swapped out for a new one as though it were an operating system or a CPU. To a degree, your current cultural situation just is what it is - and it contains components that provide natural advantages to companies as well as components that may act as brakes. We've never seen a culture that is all bad, or one that is all good. To work with your culture effectively, therefore, you must understand it, recognize which traits are preeminent and consistent, and discern under what types of conditions these traits are likely to be a help or a hindrance. Put another way, there's both a yin and a yang to cultural traits.

For example, a European pharmaceutical company with a solid product development pipeline had a tendency to be inward-looking. It had great execution capabilities and an excellent record of compliance with regulators around the world. However, when new products were ready to be launched, the company had a hard time marketing them to physicians and healthcare providers. Rather than bemoaning the company's ingrained insularity - for example, its collective tendency to value the opinions of internal colleagues more than those of outside experts - the leaders decided to use this feature of its culture to its advantage. They set up a program through which employees were acknowledged and rewarded by colleagues for "going the extra mile" to support customers. By recognizing a new kind of internal authoritativeness, the company tapped a powerful emotional trigger already in place, and engendered a new (and strategically important) behavior in its sales force.

2. Change behaviors, and mind-sets will follow. It is a commonly held view that behavioral change follows mental shifts, as surely as night follows day. This is why organizations often try to change mind-sets (and ultimately behavior) by communicating values and putting them in glossy brochures. This technique didn't work well for Enron, where accounting fraud and scandal were part of everyday practice, even as the company's espoused values of excellence, respect, integrity, and communication were carved into the marble floor of the atrium of its global headquarters in Houston. In reality, culture is much more a matter of doing than of saying. Trying to change a culture purely through top-down messaging, training and development programs, and identifiable cues seldom changes people's beliefs or behaviors. In fact, neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting. Changes to key behaviors - changes that are tangible, actionable, repeatable, observable, and measurable - are thus a good place to start. Some good examples of behavior change, which we've observed at a number of companies, relate to empowerment (reducing the number of approvals needed for decisions), collaboration (setting up easy ways to convene joint projects), and interpersonal relations (devising mutually respectful practices for raising contentious issues or grievances).

Neuroscience research suggests that people act their way into believing rather than thinking their way into acting.

A telecommunications company was seeking to improve its customer service. Rather than trying to influence mind-sets by, for example, posting signs urging employees to be polite to disgruntled customers, or having employees undergo empathy training, the company focused on what psychologists call a "precursor behavior" - a seemingly innocuous behavior that reliably precedes the occurrence of problem behavior. Leaders had noticed that poor teaming led to poor customer service, so the company rolled out a plan to encourage better and more effective teaming within call centers. To accomplish this, they set up regular design sessions for improving practices. When employees felt they were part of a happy team, and sensed a greater level of support from colleagues, they began treating their customers better.

In another example, a resources company in the Middle East was seeking to make its workplace safer. Rather than erect placards threatening workers with consequences, the company focused on a relatively basic precursor behavior: housekeeping. It organized a litter drive. Picking up trash as a team helped employees take greater pride in the workplace, which engendered a greater sense of care for fellow employees and made them more likely to speak up when they noticed an unsafe situation. Changed behavior, changed mind-set.

3. Focus on a critical few behaviors. Conventional wisdom advocates a comprehensive approach - everybody should change everything that's not perfect! But companies must be rigorously selective when it comes to picking behaviors. The key is to focus on what we call "the critical few," a small number of important behaviors that would have great impact if put into practice by a significant number of people. Discern a few things people do throughout the company that positively affect business performance - for example, ways of starting meetings or talking with customers. Make sure those are aligned with the company's overall strategy. Also check that people feel good about doing these things, so that you tap into emotional commitment. Then codify them: Translate those critical behaviors into simple, practical steps that people can take every day. Next, select groups of employees who are primed for these few behaviors, those who will respond strongly to the new behaviors and who are likely to implement and spread them.

At an Asian banking company, rapid inorganic growth had led to diverse ways of working across different units and geographies. To focus on improving teaming, customer outcomes, and the ability to realize synergies, the CEO and leadership embarked on a culture-led evolution program. They targeted just three critical behaviors: taking extra steps to delight customers, valuing performance over seniority, and backing up and supporting one another. They then converted these three general behaviors into specifics for each part of the company. Delighting customers, for instance, was translated into frontline staff collaborating with other colleagues to solve client problems and prioritizing the implementation of process improvements that affected customer outcomes. For all three behaviors, leadership recognized and celebrated examples in which people made an extraordinary effort. Senior leaders acted as role models, explicitly modeling these three new behaviors. The company also identified influential frontline, client-facing employees who could demonstrate these new behaviors in action.

4. Deploy your authentic informal leaders. Authority, which is conferred by a formal position, should not be confused with leadership. Leadership is a natural attribute, exercised and displayed informally without regard to title or position in the organizational chart. Because authentic informal leaders, who are found in every organization, are often not recognized as such, they are frequently overlooked and underused when it comes to driving culture. It is possible to identify such leaders through interviews, surveys, and tools such as organizational network analysis, which allow companies to construct maps of complex internal social relations by analyzing email statistics and meeting records. Once identified, these leaders can become powerful allies who can influence behavior through "showing by doing." In fact, when companies map out their organizations, they can identify leaders who exhibit different core leadership strengths (see "Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders").

Four Types of Authentic Informal Leaders

Every organization has people who influence and energize others without relying on their title or formal position in the hierarchy to do so. We call them "authentic informal leaders." They are a powerful resource in spreading a critical few behaviors from the bottom up. Among the many types of informal leaders present in organizations, the following are seen most frequently.

Pride builders are master motivators of other people, and catalysts for improvement around them. Often found in the role of line manager, they understand the motivations of those with whom they work. They know how to foster a sense of excellence among others. They can be found at every level of a hierarchy; some of the most effective pride builders are close to the front line, where they can interact directly with customers as well as employees. Pride builders often have powerful insights about the culture and about what behaviors are likely to lead to improvement.

Exemplars are role models. They bring vital behaviors or skills to life, and others pay attention to them. They are well respected and are effective peer influencers in the middle and senior management cohorts.

Networkers are hubs of personal communication within the organization. They know many people, and communicate freely and openly with them. They serve as links among people who might not otherwise share information or ideas. If you want to see an idea travel virally through an enterprise, enlist your networkers.

Early adopters enthusiastically latch onto and experiment with new technologies, processes, and ways of working. Involve them in your performance pilots, or whenever you are trying to demonstrate impact quickly.

At one major oil company, an informal leader named Osama became known as the "turbo-collaborator." His role gave him very little formal influence. But when he began working at the refinery, he walked the plant with the engineers, maintenance technicians, and operators, and took copious notes. As a result, he knew everyone and developed relationships across disciplines. Whenever somebody wanted to know how the place really worked, they would speak to Osama - who would either have the answer in his notebook or know precisely the right person to ask. When the company formed a buddy program between operations and maintenance aimed at using greater collaboration to improve plant reliability, it knew it needed Osama at the heart of it. He connected people, defined templates to encourage collaboration, and captured success stories. Identifying, engaging, and nurturing such informal leaders allows companies to harness their talents and further the company's transformation efforts.

5. Don't let your formal leaders off the hook. Most organizations tend to shunt culture into the silo of human resources professionals. But leaders in all parts of the company are critical in safeguarding and championing desired behaviors, energizing personal feelings, and reinforcing cultural alignment. The signaling of emotional commitment sets the tone for others to follow. If staff members see a disconnect between the culture an organization promulgates and the one its formal leadership follows, they'll disengage quickly from the advertised culture and simply mimic their seniors' behavior. The people at the top have to demonstrate the change they want to see. Here, too, the critical few come into play. A handful of the right kind of leaders have to be on board to start the process.

When Jim Rogers was CEO of GE Motors in Fort Wayne, Ind., he became frustrated because his senior leadership group of more than 15 leaders seldom functioned together as a "real team." As described by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith in The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 1993), a real team is one with a high level of emotional commitment; the leadership role shifts easily among the members depending on their skills and experience and the challenges of the moment, rather than on any hierarchical positions. Team members hold one another accountable for the quality of their collective work. Interestingly, at GE Motors the senior leadership group members often demonstrated real team capabilities in running their individual business units and functions. So Rogers decided to find ways to break them into subteams of three or four members to address specific cross-organizational issues facing the larger group. Over time, he mixed the subgroupings to match emerging issues. By working in different subgroup settings, the executives developed camaraderie, which in turn improved the effectiveness of the group as a whole.

6. Link behaviors to business objectives. When people talk about feelings, motivations, and values - all of which are vital elements of strong cultures - the conversation can often veer into abstractions. It may then range far afield of what it takes to succeed in the market. Too many employees walk away from culture-focused town halls or values discussions wondering how the advice on how to be a better person actually translates into the work they do. To avoid this disconnect, offer tangible, well-defined examples of how cultural interventions lead to improved performance and financial outcomes. Select behaviors that are aimed specifically at improving business performance and can be measured over time.

An oil company's drive to reduce maintenance costs at an industrial installation highlights the importance of such an approach. The critical few behaviors included empowerment and good decision making. One of the company's exemplars (employees who lead by example) decided it would be a smart move to make costs visible to workers. So he placed price tags on various pieces of machinery. These cues inspired behavioral changes related to decisions about whether to repair or replace equipment. Workers and managers began to recommend fixing expensive equipment rather than replacing it. The company celebrated and publicized cost savings identified by employees. The behaviors led to a change in focus and mind-set. When an employee noticed that fans were cooling the machinery during the winter, he felt empowered to call it out, and ask whether it was necessary to do so. It turned out that it wasn't - and the company saved US$750,000 annually in power costs as a result.

7. Demonstrate impact quickly. We live in an age of notoriously short attention spans. That applies as much to organizational culture as it does to people's media consumption habits. When people hear about new high-profile initiatives and efforts, and then don't see any activity related to them for several months, they'll disengage and grow cynical. That's why it is extremely important to showcase the impact of cultural efforts on business results as quickly as possible. One effective method of doing so is to stage performance pilots - that is, high-profile demonstration projects. Pilots are relatively low-risk efforts that introduce specific behaviors that can then be evaluated and assessed. They often rely on a dashboard that defines desired impacts, the tactics used, and the specific metrics to be employed.

When Bell Canada first explored using new behaviors at the front line to improve its customer service and profitability, there were many more skeptics than believers within the leadership ranks. There simply wasn't any numerical proof that the tactics would work. So CEO Michael Sabia decided to set up a pilot test in a sales unit near Toronto. The sponsors of the test blocked out a tight time frame of eight months, and developed realistic ways of measuring behavior change, customer reactions, and actual sales and margin performance. Armed with positive results in these areas - a 29 percent increase in customer satisfaction in retail stores, a 31 percent increase in revenue per call at call centers - the company went on to accelerate the expansion of these efforts across the front line in different geographies, functions, and businesses.

8. Use cross-organizational methods to go viral. Ideas can spread virally across organizational departments and functions, as well as from the top down and from the bottom up. One powerful way to spread ideas is through social media: blogs, Facebook or LinkedIn posts, and tweets - not from senior management, but from some of the authentic informal leaders mentioned in Principle 4.

By now it is well established that social media can be more effective at spreading information, news, and music than traditional modes of distribution. The same holds with critical behaviors. People are often more receptive to changes in "the way we do things around here" when those changes are recommended or shared by friends, colleagues, and other associates. This kind of credible social proof is more compelling than similar testimonials from someone whose job it is to sell something.

Just as there is an art to making content go viral, there's a craft to making behavior go viral. For example, in a model that we have tested successfully in several situations, a company starts with a few carefully chosen groups of 12 to 15 informal leaders in three or four different parts of the business. After several weeks, an additional 10 to 15 groups of informal leaders are set up in every business unit. After about three months, the existing groups are encouraged to expand and bring in new people. After another three to six months have passed, the groups become more autonomous, allowed to control their own expansion. Meanwhile, the company facilitates connections among groups to share learning and insights. As behavior spreads, company leaders see increased performance as well as peer and leadership recognition.

9. Align programmatic efforts with behaviors. We've emphasized the role that informal leaders can play in helping ideas go viral. But it's also important to match the new cultural direction with existing ways of doing business. Informal mechanisms and cultural interventions must complement and integrate with the more common formal organization components, not work at cross-purposes. By providing the structure in which people work - through disciplines such as organization design, analytics, human resources, and lean process improvement - the formal organization provides a rational motivation for employee actions, while the informal organization enables the emotional commitment that characterizes peak performance.

The U.S. Marine Corps provides a classic example of integrating formal and informal leadership efforts. The "rule of three" dictates how the Marines design their organizations and projects and how they execute in a hierarchy. (Three squads form into one of three divisions, which form one of three battalions.) The formal leaders of those units are expected to know the intent of the officer two levels above them - and to call out any order or situation they perceive to be incoherent or in conflict with that intent. But there are also informal leaders: Each of the four members of a frontline rifle team is prepared (and expected) to take the lead whenever the formal leader is disabled or loses the high-ground position. This means that the informal leaders also need to know the intent of that officer two levels above. Integrating informal norms with the formal structures helps enable the timely battlefield adjustments that have served the Marine Corps well for more than 200 years.

10. Actively manage your cultural situation over time. Companies that have had great success working with culture - we call them "culture superstars" - actively monitor, manage, care for, and update their cultural forces. Why? As we noted at the outset, when aligned with strategic and operating priorities, culture can provide hidden sources of energy and motivation that can accelerate changes faster than formal processes and programs. Even if you have a highly effective culture today, it may not be good enough for tomorrow.

Southwest Airlines stands as an example of a battle-tested company in which culture has been managed over time. Famous for its long-term success in an industry where even the largest players routinely fail, Southwest for 40 years has been energized by a deep sense of pride among all employees. Southwest has found that constructing an environment that puts its employees first - above customers and owners - fosters a sense of emotional commitment and pride that delivers excellent customer service. But at Southwest, the work on culture is never completed. Just as the airline's strategy, tactics, and technologies have evolved to cope with a changing external environment, specific HR practices, including informal behaviors, have shifted over time.

Living in Your Culture

Although challenging, multidimensional, and often difficult to deal with, a company's cultural situation constitutes a powerful set of emotional resources. As is the case with other resources - human, technological, financial - it is incumbent upon leaders to strive to get the most value out of it.

To a degree, culture can be compared to natural forces such as winds and tides. These elements are there in the background, sometimes unnoticed, sometimes obvious. Endowed with immense power, they can waylay plans and inhibit progress. They can't really be tamed or fundamentally altered. But if you respect them and understand how to make the most of them, if you work with them and tap into their hidden power, they can become a source of energy and provide powerful assistance.

The best way to start is to ask yourself a series of questions. What are the most important emotional forces that determine what your people do? What few behavior changes would matter most in meeting strategic and operational imperatives? Who are the authentic informal leaders you can enlist? And what can you and your fellow senior leaders do differently to signal and reinforce those critical behaviors?

Of course, you shouldn't plan for dramatic results overnight. Expect an evolution, not a revolution. One of the challenges of working with culture is that, as we've noted, it changes gradually - often too slowly for leaders facing fast-moving competitors. That's the bad news. The good news? If you approach culture with respect and intelligence, as a milieu in which you and your enterprise live, you can use it to accelerate your competitive momentum. There's no better time than the present to start.

Reprint No. 16105

Author profiles:

Jon Katzenbach is an acclaimed advisor to executives for Strategy&, PwC's strategy consulting group. He is a managing director with PwC US, based in New York, and founder of the Katzenbach Center, Strategy&'s global institute on organizational culture and leadership. He is a best-selling author on organizational culture, leadership, and teaming; his books include The Wisdom of Teams (with Douglas K. Smith; Harvard Business School Press, 1993) and Leading Outside the Lines (with Zia Khan; Jossey-Bass, 2010).

Carolin Oelschlegel is a director of the Katzenbach Center for Strategy&. She leads the global operations of the center and advises clients around the world on culture and leadership topics. Based in San Francisco, she is a director with PwC US.

James Thomas is a thought leader in organizational culture with Strategy&. He is the Middle East lead of the Katzenbach Center and an expert in culture and organizational topics. Based in Dubai, he is a partner with PwC Middle East.

Also contributing to this article were Strategy& specialists Varya Davidson (partner with PwC Australia), Kenji Mitsui (partner with PwC Japan), Henning Hagen and Rutger von Post (principals with PwC US), and Shona Especkerman (senior manager with PwC Malaysia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jon Katzenbach, Carolin Oelschlegel, and James Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companies can tap their natural advantage when they focus on changing a few important behaviors, enlist informal leaders, and harness the power of employees' emotions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teori T - om bredde- og dybdefaglighed hos sygeplejersker

# data[].attributes.subject
Teori T - om bredde- og dybdefaglighed hos sygeplejersker

# data[].attributes.body
7 konkrete anbefalinger (pixiudgaven)

# data[].attributes.headline
Bliver ansatte på amerikanske kyllingeslagterier tvunget til at gå med ble?

# data[].attributes.subject
Bliver ansatte på amerikanske kyllingeslagterier tvunget til at gå med ble?

# data[].attributes.body
Rationel tænkning i sin reneste form

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bliver ansatte på amerikanske kyllingeslagterier tvunget til at gå med b.._

# data[].attributes.headline
The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: 

# data[].attributes.subject
The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is going to be a five part post that explores various types of organizational structures that either already exist in today's business landscape or are starting to emerge as viable options for the future of work. Each post will explore one of these structures and then I'll provide a final summary post on all five. These concepts and ideas are taken from my book, The Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive Organization. The five types of organizational structures that I will explore are:

1. The traditional hierarchy (part 1 is already available)

2. Flatter organizations (part 2 is already available)

3. Flat organizations (part 3 is already available)

4. Flatarchies (part 4 is already available)

5. Holacratic organizations (part 5 is already available)

Let's start with the structure we have all come to know and love...the hierarchy.

I've talked about several workplace practices and approaches that are quite out-dated and the hierarchy is one of them. According to Wikipedia, "possibly the first use of the English word "hierarchy" cited by the Oxford English Dictionary was in 1880, when it was used in reference to the three orders of three angels as depicted by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th-6th centuries)." This model was quickly adopted by the military as a way to show a chain of command and of course we have all seen and experienced this within our organizations (and most still do).

This type of a model makes sense for linear work where no brain power is required and where the people who work there are treated like expendable cogs. However, as the war for talent continues to become more fierce, organizations around the world are quickly trying to figure out alternatives to the hierarchy. In fact, every single organization I speak with, work with, and research, is looking to flatten out their structure. Nobody ever tells me they want more bureaucracy and more layers.

There are many challenges with this model but to name a few. Communication typically flows from the top to the bottom which means innovation stagnates, engagement suffers, and collaboration is virtually non-existent. This type of environment is riddled with bureaucracy and is extremely sluggish. This is why the hierarchy is perhaps the biggest vulnerability for any organization still employing it. It opens up the doors for competitors and new incumbents to quickly take over. There is also no focus on the employee experience in this type of a structure and as organizations around the world are exploring alternative organizational models, those still stuck with the hierarchy are going to have one heck of a time trying to attract and retain top talent.

The hierarchy has permeated virtually every company around the world regardless of size, industry, or location. The greatest strength of the hierarchy used to be that it was so reliable at maintain the status quo, which was exactly what companies wanted decades ago. However what was once it's strength is now it's greatest weakness. The hierarchy is a very resilient management structure that has been so embedded in how we work that most organizations around the world are having a tedious time getting rid of it.

Today one thing is certain, the hierarchy belongs in a management museum locked up for people to see, but not touch.

In part 2 of this post I'll explore what is perhaps the most practical and scalable organizational model, the "flatter" organization.
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist. To have Jacob speak at your event, to get access to his videos, podcasts and articles, or to subscribe to his newsletter you can visit TheFutureOrganization.
Jacob is an Author, speaker and futurist. His latest book, The Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive Organization, explores how the workplace is changing and was endorsed by business leaders such as the Chairman of KPMG, CEO of Wh...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: Part 1, The Hierarchy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is going to be a five part post that explores various types of organizational structures that either already exist in today's business landscape or are starting to emerge as viable options for the future of work. Each post will explore one of these structures and then I'll provide a final [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Se og hør Peter Munk Christiansen, professor ved Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet fortælle om styringskæden

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modellen forudsætter eksempelvis, at partierne udbyder politiske programmer, som vælgerne kan orientere sig efter og give deres stemme. Det gør partierne dog indimellem på måder, som gør det svært for vælgerne at orientere sig. Modellen forudsætter som et andet eksempel, at forvaltningen er politisk styret.

# data[].attributes.body
I forbindelse med kultur uv-dagen, så tænker jeg at denne lille film er ret tankevækkende

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms

# data[].attributes.body
Social kapital på teamniveau

# data[].attributes.body
Den gamle kloge mand bliver bare skarpere og skarpere med årene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© Henry Mintzberg 2018. To appear in " Bedtime Stories for Managers" (Berrett-Koehler, forthcoming in February 2019); a similar version appeared in this blog on 25 September 2015. Our International Masters Program for Managers ( impm.org) is for those managers who can function holding two opposed ideas in mind at the same time.