Unit 4 essay

ORG 6600, Culture of Learning Organizations 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

5. Distinguish between espoused and real values.

Reading Assignment In order to access the resources below, you must first log into the myWaldorf Student Portal and access the Business Source Complete database within the Waldorf Online Library. Heorhiadi, A., Conbere, J., & Hazelbaker, C. (2014). Virtue vs. virus: Can OD overcome the heritage of

scientific management. OD Practitioner, 46(3), 27-31. Khandelwal, K. A., & Mohendra, N. V. (2010). Espoused organizational values, vision, and corporate social

responsibility: Does it matter to organizational members? The Journal for Decision Makers, (35)3, 19-35.

Marinucci, D. (2006). Don’t just talk about family values. Tire Business, 24(18), 8. Van Lee, R. (2005, August 25). Do they really mean it? Accountancy Age, 13.

Unit Lesson Welcome Welcome to Unit IV. So far in this course, we have discussed what organizational culture is and how it is shared between the organization and each individual. We have also applied that concept to the role of the founder, who strongly influences the organizational culture and whose influence is evident even after the founder is no longer employed with the organization. What we have discussed so far will serve as the foundation for the remainder of the course. From here, we will apply how cultural systems operate in organizations, particularly in instances where people have different perspectives that clash. We will analyze the system of values, behaviors, and outcomes of both a typical organization and that of a learning organization. This learning will help you develop skills for leading change. People have found this learning to be life-changing, both in their personal and professional lives. First, we will take a look at the system of values, behaviors, and outcomes of typical organizations, which demonstrate dysfunction when conflicts occur. This pattern is called Model I, while the cultural system of a learning organization is called Model II. In this unit, you will find a Suggested Reading resource entitled the “socio-cognitive systems learning model”. You may wish to print this model. Throughout the remainder of the course, we will focus on the specific elements of this model. Printing it now will be helpful, so you may use it as a reference and pencil in any notes you wish to make on the handout. In this unit, we focus specifically on the values of typical organizations, which demonstrate Model I dysfunctions. Let’s begin by discussing people’s typical values in the American culture Model I Values: Typical Values in the American Culture In the American culture, as well as in typical microcultures—such as organizations— that are nested within the American culture, a contradiction exists between the values that people claim to have and the

UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE

Values of Typical Organizations

ORG 6600, Culture of Learning Organizations 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

values that are reflected in their behaviors. The values that people claim to have are called espoused values. Let’s take a closer look at values that people commonly espouse or claim to have, comparing and contrasting them with the values that are reflected in people’s behaviors (i.e., their real values) (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015). Espoused values: If you asked ten people to name their most important values, what are some of the responses you would expect to get? How about faith in God, relationships with family, or relationships with specific friends? How about pets? How about intangible values, such as human rights, freedom, equality, democracy, tolerance, or kindness? People tend to espouse values that reflect cultural ideals. The challenge is not so much with the espoused values—the values that people claim to have. The challenge is that people often behave in ways that contradict the values they claim to have (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015). Here are some examples:

 What about a person who espouses Christian faith, but the individual does not pray, read the Bible, worship, or engage in fellowship?

 What about the individual whose espoused values include his relationships with his wife and kids, yet he typically arrives home from work after dinner each evening, and even when he is home, he is distracted? His attention is driven by work-related messages that he is receiving on his phone, and mentally, he is not present with his family.

 What about the CEO who espouses equality, yet his board of directors and his direct reports are exclusively white males?

Both of the major U.S. political parties also demonstrate contradictions between their espoused values and the values reflected in their behaviors. This contradiction is not limited to politicians themselves. Some American citizens also jump on this bandwagon. Here are some examples for each major political party:

 What about a Democrat who espouses tolerance but who makes personal attacks and degrading comments on Facebook about Republican citizens, comments that are fueled by stereotypes, such as inferring that Republicans are ignorant? In that example, where is the tolerance and the appreciation of differences that this individual espouses?

 Another example has to do with a second-generation American, a Republican whose father’s life was a rags-to-riches story, building a Fortune 500 corporation from the ground-up. What about this Republican who espouses—and is living—the American dream but who is in favor of closing America’s borders to people who are also interested in achieving the American dream?

None of these values are bad. For example, people are welcome to their own political values. The problem is in the contradiction between the values that people espouse—or claim to have—with the real values that are reflected in their behaviors. People tend to espouse values that reflect cultural ideals, but their behavior reflects values that do not align with those cultural ideals (Friesenborg, 2015). Real values: As we have discussed in this course, culture is driven by deep, underlying assumptions. These assumptions are something we rarely think about. Instead, we take them for granted. We may not even be aware of these deep assumptions because we often learn them through acculturation. In other words, we are often blind to our deep assumptions because we absorbed these assumptions from the cultures with which we most closely identify ourselves (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015; Schein, 2010). The American culture is highly individualistic (Bandura, 2002; Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 2008; Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Trompenaars & Hampden- Turner, 1998; Waggoner, 2011). This means that the focus is on the individual person, and the culture “[encourages] individual freedom and responsibility” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 59). In contrast, collectivist (sometimes called communitarian) cultures are relationship-oriented, rather than individual-oriented. Collectivist cultures “encourage individuals to work for consensus in the interests of the group” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 59). The United States has an individualistic culture, as do countries such as the Czech Republic, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Finland, Spain, and Belgium. Examples of countries with collectivist cultures include Egypt, Japan, Mexico, India, Nepal, Bahrain, France, Brazil, and Singapore.

ORG 6600, Culture of Learning Organizations 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

The American culture idolizes individuals. Americans idolize sports heroes, A-list actors, pop stars, and other celebrities. People also idolize entrepreneurs, such as Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett. Individualistic cultures, like the U.S., give credit to individuals for their successes as well as blame individuals for their missteps or misfortunes (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). While the American macroculture as well as the majority of microcultures within the American culture are individualistic, some microcultures are collectivistic. For example, perhaps your family has a collectivistic culture, focusing on relationships and consensus-building. Still, the great majority of microcultures within the macroculture reflect individualism (Bandura, 2002; Bellah et al., 2008; Kitayama et al., 2007; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Schein, 2010; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; Waggoner, 2011). This individualism has led to the American culture’s predominant value system, which revolves around the individual, the self. In the individualistic American culture, the primary value is centered on the egocentric desires and goals of the self. Have you ever heard the expression, “Looking out for number one”? Number one refers to oneself. That expression alludes to our culture’s self-centered focus on our own desires and goals, often at the expense of other people (Friesenborg, 2015; Palmer, 2004). Individualism is not bad; there is nothing wrong with valuing people on the individual level. The problem is when this ideology leads people to value certain individuals—especially oneself as number one—or to show either indifference or disdain to other individuals (Friesenborg, 2015; Palmer, 2004). The problem is when espoused values reflect cultural ideals that do not account for this contradiction. Furthermore, people tend to exhibit blindness to the contradiction between their espoused and real values (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015). Socio-Cognitive Systems Learning Model Culture is a complex interaction of values, behaviors, and outcomes. The interaction between those elements is cyclical. Values—with their deep, underlying assumptions—represent the foundation of culture. Real values are expressed through social behaviors as people interact with each other. The outcomes lead to future behavior (Argyris, 2000, 2004, 2010; Argyris & Schön, 1996; Friesenborg, 2015; Schein, 2010). Socio-cognitive refers to the ways that people think about social interaction. The systems element reflects the system of interacting values, behaviors, and outcomes. Learning refers to the cultural learning and norms (Friesenborg, 2015). The socio-cognitive systems learning model compares a typical culture, which reflects dysfunction (Model I), with the culture of a learning organization (Model II). In this unit, we are focusing only on the values of the typical Model I culture, such as the American macroculture and the majority of microcultures—including organization cultures—within that macroculture.

References Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press. Argyris, C. (2010). Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

ORG 6600, Culture of Learning Organizations 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269-290.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (2008). Habits of the heart:

Individualism and commitment in American life (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Friesenborg, L. (2015). The culture of learning organizations: Understanding Argyris’ theory through a

socio-cognitive systems learning model. Forest City, IA: Brennan-Mitchell. Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136-174). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming

individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311-342. Palmer, P. J. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in

global business (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Waggoner, M. D. (2011). Sacred and secular tensions in contemporary higher education. In

M. D. Waggoner (Ed.), Sacred and secular tensions in higher education: Connecting parallel universities (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Suggested Reading Friesenborg, L. (2015). The culture of learning organizations: Understanding Argyris’ theory through a socio-

cognitive systems learning model. Forest City, IA: Brennan-Mitchell. In order to access the resource below, you must first log into the myWaldorf Student Portal and access the Business Source Complete database within the Waldorf Online Library. Howell, A., Kirk-Brown, A., & Cooper, B. K. (2012). Does congruence between espoused and enacted values

predict affective commitment in Australian organizations? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(4), 731-747.

The Nike Case and Corporate Self-Censorship. (2004). Business & the Environment with ISO 14000

Updates, 15(3), 6-7. E-book available through the Waldorf Online Library: Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Organizational power politics: Tactics in organizational leadership (2nd ed.). Santa

Barbara, CA: Praeger. Click here to download the Socio-Cognitive Systems Learning Model.