Embedding innovation into organizational culture

Human capital has a greater importance to employers for several reasons; first and foremost in that it is essentially thanks to the contribution of its employees that organizations attain their objectives and pursue their strategy. The expression human capital, nonetheless, should not be considered as exclusively referring to the business talents and high-flyers, but rather to the overall organization employee population. In order for employers to totally benefit of the contribution which can be potentially made by their usually varied and diversified workforce, these should encourage and stimulate the participation of all of their employees. This will in turn show these that their employer genuinely values them and their support, regardless of their role and rank in the organizational hierarchy.

The world is nowadays subject to a constant process of change whose pace is progressively accelerating. Yet, organizations have become increasingly sensitive to a higher number of exogenous factors of different nature, which may either provide these great opportunities or pose serious threats. It is therefore evident that the capability to adapt and change strategies accordingly, more often than not at very short notice, has to be considered by employers as a prerequisite for survival at worst and success at best.
 

An organization ability to anticipate and introduce new trends, products, services, approaches and procedures would unquestionably enable this to gain competitive advantage. Notwithstanding, this has not and cannot be intended as an effort or a process limited to a specifically identified period of time. In contrast, by reason of the harsh competition existing between organizations of the same industry and sometimes between organizations of different industries, this has to be indeed meant as a never ending process.

To be successful and constantly come up with brilliant, brand new ideas, which can be subsequently developed and transformed into new valuable products or services or into more productive and efficient processes, the support, involvement and active participation of all of the employees have to be sought and pursued in a stable unwavering way insofar as being perceived by all of the employees as an activity included into their job description; hence, as something they have to regularly devote time and thoughts.

This unquestionably is a difficult feat to perform for every employer in that individuals might perceive this activity as an additional task vis-à-vis those typically, directly required by their job. The sole effectual way to instil innovation into individuals and induce these to truly dedicate themselves to the activity of identifying and developing new ideas is to embed innovation into a pervasive organizational component, that is to say corporate culture.

Organizational culture is traditionally concerned with the business shared values and beliefs, from which the behaviour, which is thus considered as the business norm, stems. So powerful is nowadays deemed to be the impact of business culture on employee behaviour that it is recently very often associated with the distinctive way individuals behave, perform their activities and approach decision-making in the workplace, that is to say the “way we do things around here.”

The pervasiveness and penetration of culture through an organization and the strong influence it exerts over individuals leave no doubt about the circumstance that whether employers want to constantly achieve an objective, especially whether this is sorely associated with employee behaviour, aptitude and the way individuals approach decision-making and problems, the means they identify to attain this end has to be supported by and embedded into organizational culture.

Firmly and stably including innovation into corporate culture can be also considered as a mandatory step to avert that innovation may be hampered by culture. Organizational culture can in fact make or break any change initiative an employer may wish to introduce and implement within a business. Ensuring that innovation is well understood, that it is genuinely accepted and that it actually inspires every individual action and behaviour acquires hence a particularly remarkable importance.

In order to consistently, effectually introduce and embed innovation into organizational culture, notwithstanding, employers should have crystal clear ideas from the outset about what they intend as innovation and why they consider crucially important their business culture being underpinned by this value.

What innovation is

The idea of innovation at large is habitually associated with the making and development of new products and services: different from the existing ones, capable to meet an increased number of users’ needs, performing better and easier to use, store and carry. The constant technological advances have and are indeed favouring this process so that in many cases the application of the latest technology to the existing products and the provision of services making use of new technologies have enabled employers to introduce in their relevant market innovative products and services. Most importantly, technology can clearly help employers to develop and design unparalleled, completely new products.

Innovation, nonetheless, is not exclusively concerned with products and services, but also with processes and procedures, which can be designed and developed to the benefit of a person, unit, business or community at large (Farr, 1990). As stressed by Martins (2000), the concept of innovation is also strictly contextual-related; more specifically, a new idea can be actually considered as genuinely innovative whether regarded as such within the specific settings and, it could be added, by the individuals to whom it is directed.

Identified the different degrees of innovation and stressed the fact that innovation depends on the circumstances, it is also crucially important to ensure that innovation serves the business cause. New ideas have hence to represent for employers valuable opportunities enabling these to effectually pursue their intended strategy (Gaynor, 2002). Once again, the context and the specific circumstances came to play; what is considered innovative today might become obsolete or unsuitable tomorrow as a consequence of a strategy or environment change, never mind technological advances. To ensure that employers’ expectations in terms of innovation are constantly met these need hence to be relentlessly monitored and the consequent possibly required initiatives and actions adapted and adopted accordingly.

The circumstance innovation strongly supports an employer strategy and essentially enables this to gain competitive edge has accounted for innovation also being essentially perceived and seen as an, it could be argued innovative, approach to problem solving.

Innovation does not derive from the development and introduction of new technologies only; new ideas can in fact also be identified by creatively adapting, improving and enhancing current and even past technologies.

Why it is necessary to embed innovation into organizational culture

There are indeed plenty of reasons for employers having to introduce innovation as a strong component of corporate culture. As suggested by Voelpel et al (2005), an innovation-based organizational culture should first and foremost enable employers to successfully compete in their market in a sustainable way. Albeit innovation is crucially important for all the employers, irrespective of the industry they operate in, in some industries, as for instance it is the case of high-tech and information technology, innovation plays an even more significant role insofar as employers need imperatively to innovate, seriously risking otherwise to disappear (Angel, 2006).

Encouraging continuous innovation is essentially important to support the business over time and enable the organization to gain and maintain competitive edge. This unremitting process clearly entails remarkable efforts which would be pointless to think could be ever made by a limited number of employees who, by reason of their formal role, may be considered as the only ones suitable to take the challenge up. Including innovation as a founding pillar of culture enables employers to ensure that every individual takes up the challenge and does his/her utmost to contribute to a constant, unrelenting innovation process (Kenny and Reedy, 2007).

As discussed earlier, embedding innovation into culture can also help individuals to come up with new, innovative ways to analyse problems and identify solutions (Lock and Kirkpatrick, 1995). Employers are in fact increasingly considering embedding innovation into organizational culture to promote and encourage problem solving within their business. One of the main reasons for managers usually complaining about their direct reports relates to their readiness to represent the issues and difficulties associated with their tasks and duties, and their lack of ability and eagerness to come up with and suggest appropriate solutions to overcome these. Despite this is not obviously the sole reason for employers deciding to include innovation amongst their organizational values, developing and rooting within a firm’s culture a strong employee aptitude to problem solving clearly represents a massive advantage and asset on its own. Managers at all levels could thus focus on other issues and employees would find their job and daily activities definitely much more significant and compelling, increasing their self-esteem and deriving from their job a higher value in terms of intrinsic reward.

The development of innovation as a means to foster problem solving within a business can indeed prove to be particularly advantageous. Whether employers are keen and long to come up with new ideas, products, services, processes and procedures this is indeed invariably associated with their need to solve current problems and anticipate or avoid likely future ones to arise. Regularly introducing in the relevant market new products and services would enable organizations to stay ahead of the competition, whereas developing more efficient and effective processes and procedures can enable these to control variable and fixed costs and to resist and insist thus in the market.

Employers, those who strive for innovation included, unfortunately also constantly wait in ambush in order to be ready to copy and replicate the innovative ideas developed by their direct and indirect competitors as quickly as possible. This actually is one of the main reasons, arguably the main reason, for innovation being all too often short-lived. This is indeed also the motive for innovation being typically regarded as an everything but straightforward process and should be as far as possible invariably coupled with the concept of “difficult to replicate” (it can hardly be used the term “impossible”). All of that should not deter employers from struggling for innovation. Copying and replicating also require time and efforts and sometimes it can also be the cause for dismal failure. Yet, introducing in the market innovative and original products and services definitely contributes to the employer brand image, in addition to the consumer brand image. Findings of an investigation carried out in the health sector (Tuan and Venkatesh, 2010), for instance, revealed that technological innovation is considered by many hospitals’ directors as an effective means to increase both “hospitals reputation and brand image” and improve the institutions marketing efforts credibility.

Innovation and change

Whereas change does not necessarily imply innovation, things in fact changes but not necessarily in an innovative and creative fashion; innovation clearly entails change. Before fostering innovation, organizational culture should hence first and foremost support and ensure individual readiness to change. This aspect has indeed a pivotal importance and it is underpinned by the same reasons for innovation, in order to become part of everyday employee behaviour, needing to be embedded into culture. Whether in fact an employer should attempt to embed innovation into the corporate culture of an organization where change is habitually resisted by employees, innovation would never ever be embraced in practice by individuals. Culture, rather than make would in this case break the change initiative. Employees are instinctively wary about change and use to oppose and resist it in that perceived as threatening their current status quo and pushing them beyond their comfort zone. Innovation can potentially be perceived as a dimension of change in the extreme so that whether individuals are not acquainted with change these may be likely to a fortiori resist innovation.

Employers and HR professionals need to pay extra care to this aspect and, before making plans to firmly introduce innovation amongst the founding pillars of the business culture, should previously ensure that employees are supportive of and open to change.

The innovation continuum

Embedding innovation into organizational culture means openly recognize and communicate that this value has a central and special meaning for the employer. In order to foster innovation the support and encouragement of managers is clearly paramount, but the most important features of an organizational culture inspired by innovation are focus and constancy, which have to never ever fade or weaken.

Since innovation requires a continuous investment in terms of efforts and resources, employers should decide from the very beginning how they want to support the process, safe in the knowledge that promoting innovation by means of organizational culture entails the involvement of the overall employee population and not, for example, the empowerment of the research and development unit only.

The first decision employers need to make concerns hence the pace they want to keep in terms of investments over time. Employers may for instance decide to devote a constant level of resources (Table 1), slowly increase (Table 2) or decrease this over time, or to have recourse to a combination of all of these approaches. This decision should be indeed influenced by the return the organization is expected its investment to yield. It is hardly imaginable that the higher the investment, necessarily the higher the return. It clearly also depends on the circumstances; whether no substantial changes have been implemented within the business in terms of products, services, processes and procedures during the last few years, which may account for the employer believing that there are many areas which could benefit in the short to mid term of the overall employee population involvement in the quest for innovation, the investment could be initially higher and subsequently decrease and stay constant over time. This may also depend on the level of the employee response and on how this varies over time. Employers may also decide to occasionally increase their investment to reinvigorate and boast employee participation whether and whenever this should weaken.

Organizations should preferably identify from the outset the approach to the investment they want to adopt to sustain innovation, but this does not clearly mean that plans cannot be changed accordingly depending on the results yielded and the return on the investment generated in practice. In theory, it is likely that more significant results are produced initially, whereas subsequently the frequency results are yielded might occur every so often. This is clearly an area which would deserve a specific empirical investigation. Nevertheless, irrespective of the frequency successes are attained, employers should be well aware that these feats can only be performed by means of a constant, unrelenting process and thanks to the constant efforts and dedication of all of the employees. What matters the most is therefore keep staff constantly focused on innovation and create excitement about the topic. Needless to say, accomplishments and successes have to be properly celebrated and contributors rewarded.

Longo, R., (2015), Embedding innovation into organizational culture; Milan: HR Professionals.

Who develops, shapes and controls organizational culture?

Corporate culture is increasingly gaining employers attention in that it is supposed to have a remarkable impact on individual behaviour: “the way we do things around here” and ultimately on businesses performance. Whether employers and their management could be able to control corporate culture, these would be in a position to influence individual comportment in the workplace and the degree of employee contribution to organizational success.

Academics, practitioners and managers, nonetheless, formulate and support different theories and ideas so that it can be hardly averred that a widespread agreement as regards this subject actually exists. All in all, these theories can be grouped into two main categories: those who support the idea that culture is “something an organization is” and managers cannot hence manipulate or control (Silver, 1987; Smith and Peterson, 1988 and Ackroyd and Cowdy, 1990) and those averring that in order to attain organizational efficiency and effectiveness corporate culture needs to be controlled by a company management (Ouchi, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982 and Smith, 1992).

Trying to determine whether corporate culture can be actually shaped and controlled by an employer can prove to be quite a conundrum; to this extent taking heed of the genesis of corporate culture can prove to be a good starting point. The first question to answer hence is: does culture actually develop or is it rather defined and shaped by the company founders and subsequently handed down through the generations?

Whether we support the idea that organizational culture stems from the shared values on which individuals base their common beliefs and develop the group norms, which ultimately influence their behaviour and are reinforced by the positive results it enables these to yield, we should conclude that corporate culture can be hardly controlled or manipulated by a business management. Notwithstanding, in many cases organizational culture is actually defined by the company founder who expects that this will be subsequently handed down by the business management through the generations.

In the former case corporate culture can be considered as the outcome of a rather slow and habitually relatively long process where all individuals are or can be potentially involved; whereas in the latter case organizational culture is somewhat of an off the shelf package, it has been prepared and prepackaged by the founder and fostered and implemented within the business with the help of the organization management.

The example of the Disney Enterprises is one of the most fascinating and remarkable in this sense and can definitely help to identify some crucially important aspects.

In order to clearly communicate and express his vision of the company and the culture he desired to foster, we go back to the early 1950s, Walt Disney had recourse to the figurative language, more precisely to the metaphor of organization as drama or theatre. Customers were thus called “guests”, employees were known as “casting”, the ticket boots were called “box offices”, the dress code “costuming”, a clear difference between “back-stage” and “on-stage” was made with reference to the different areas of the park and everyone was essentially acting according to the Disney script.

 

Albeit staff at Disney used an unconventional business wording, the metaphor of drama was absolutely consistent with the requirements of a typical for-profit organization. Each individual basically played a precise role, within a structured framework, aiming at favouring the attainment of a specific business-related objective (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987).

By reason of the paternalist and friendly approach adopted by Disney, many employers had also developed the idea that an additional metaphor could have been used to describe the park culture, that is, the metaphor of organization as a family.

Things changed dramatically when Walt Disney died in 1966. Walt, as he wanted to be called by the park’s employees, was charismatic both as a founder and as a leader and after his demise the park management literally strived to cope with his absence. Insofar as in the 1980s employees harshly complained that the management was sensibly diverging from Disney original vision and that they were the only people who were truly caring to keep faith to Disney’s genuine view (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987). As suggested by Martin et al (1985), the circumstance that a founder might hand over an organization culture as a legacy can be considered questionable, insofar as the Authors defined this option as “seductive promise.”

The employees desire to preserve Disney’s original vision led these to re-interpret the metaphor of the park culture putting much more emphasis on the metaphor of family, rather than on that of drama; a reinterpretation which Walt would have not possibly supported himself. The park management, in a bid to cope with these adversities, developed the “Disney philosophy” based on the image of the park as a friendly place, first-name-based and where teamwork was crucially important (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987).

These values and beliefs gained a widespread acceptance and consolidated rather quickly within the business. Employees treated the park visitors as their personal guests and were expected to receive the same treatment from the park management, which actually did not take any particular action to redress employee expectations. In contrast, managers adopted a paternalistic style and people feel so at ease working at Disney insofar as nobody did even consider leaving the company; working at Disney was ultimately considered somewhat of “a way of life”, rather than a job.

In the early 1980s the external environment played a sorely remarkable role and made quite an impact on the organization and its people. The growing pressure exerted by competitors, some company takeover attempts and the increasing level of the operating costs accounted for the company management needing to pay extra care to the cost-containment side of the park administration. Yet, the findings of an industry-related salary investigation revealed that wages at Disney where 62 percent higher than those offered by the other employers of the same industry so that in 1984 the park management proposed a two-year pay freeze and the elimination of some benefits for the employees who would have joined the company hereinafter.

The need for this profound, revolutionary change was essentially based on economic and financial grounds and was negatively perceived by staff, who considered the interference of the economic and financial factors as threatening the stability of the Disney family and in open contrast with Walt’s original vision. Despite Disney was also remembered by staff as an acute and clever entrepreneur, as it has to be, very focused on the profitable side of his business too. Discontent and malaise culminated in an unprecedented 22-day strike. The park managers tried to persuade the employees that the proposed sacrifices were actually necessary and essentially consistent with the metaphor of the organization as a family in that when a family is experiencing difficulties the family members need to jointly tie the belt and make some sacrifices. Notwithstanding, employees rejected this management argument, which was tantamount to a distort re-interpretation of Walt’s vision. At that stage, the park management clearly realized that some permanent changes needed to be introduced (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987).

Employees and management come thus to an inevitable, open and indeed marked contrast. Employee concern, however, was not actually mainly due to the financial sacrifices the new circumstances required, but rather to the different management interpretation of Walt’s philosophy and the amendments made to the park policies as a consequence of that re-interpretation.

The aftermath of these events was really severe, especially in terms of human relations. Some employees perceived managers as enemies insofar as restricting the metaphor of family to the employees only, with the exclusion of the organization management. Indeed, contrasts also spread amongst employees. The difference in salaries between the people recruited after the abolition of some benefits and the “old employees”, who were still entitled to enjoy those benefits, clearly generated divisions and tensions amongst employees too.

Some complications were also caused by the confusion generated by some opposing preferences expressed by staff. Despite some employees enjoyed the care for the individual, which the old paternalistic approach used by the management entailed, many others did prefer not to be considered like children and wanted to have their say on the design and development of the future “life at Disney.”

All of these events gave rise to a strong resentment amongst staff and to a clear split between employees and management which had a long-lasting remarkable impact on the business performance and on both staff motivation and morale.

At Disney organizational culture has over time generated from different sources. Culture was originally shaped by the charismatic founder and widely recognized strong leader, that is, Walt Disney; whereas subsequently it was developed and to some extent manipulated by employees. In both cases the business management played a limited, if any, role in defining the corporate culture.

This case also shows the significance of the impact and role played by the external environment. Life at Disney essentially changed when after the economic prosperity of the mid-1960s the external economic circumstances changed dramatically in the early 1980s. The worsening market conditions in fact sensibly, negatively influenced the park atmosphere and exacerbated internal human relations; in the first place between management and employees, soon after also amongst staff.

The endogenous environment actually contributed to add fuel to the flames too. The idyllic atmosphere which had characterized the park during the previous decades of its establishment had in fact accounted for managers and staff never having managed conflicts so that, the moment arrived, both parties were not used and prepared to manage these (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987). Somewhat ironically perhaps, in this case, the nonexistence of previous conflicts made it harder the conciliation process between the two parties involved.

The Disney Enterprise experience also shows that whether the development and control of organizational culture are entirely left on employee hands, the final result may not fully fulfil the business leaders’ real expectations. When corporate culture is shaped by the founder not only culture has to be embraced by the existing employees, but also the identification of the future recruits has to be based on their capability to adapt, or rather, naturally fit the employer vision. In the Disney case, employees could re-interpret the founder vision of organizational culture in that the park management did not continue to strongly and firmly support it and did virtually nothing to redress employee deviating views.

The more charismatic a company founder, the stronger the impact of the culture this shapes and introduces within his/her business. Yet, the more recognized the founder leadership qualities, the easier for this to foster the desired culture and the likelier that individuals will keenly and eagerly embrace this; Apple’s Steve Jobs and Microsoft’s Bill Gates are two remarkable examples of this in modern times.

When a founder is a strong genuine leader and a charismatic person it is indeed also very likely that stories, narrations and myths where the founder plays the role of the hero can effectively help the business to hand down culture through the generations.

Despite this might not always be the case, Disney’s lessons learned book definitely supports the Ouchi, Peters and Waterman, and Smith view: to attain organizational effectiveness and efficiency corporate culture needs to be shaped and controlled by management. It can be added, and particular attention needs to be paid to the exogenous environment for the impact this can potentially make on it.

It could be argued that culture tends to develop, and hence to be managed by employees, when no charismatic founder or genuine leader is shaping it or, more in general, when the business management is unable to shape and effectively, influentially and convincingly foster it. It is in fact hardly imaginable that corporate culture may be developed by employees whether a charismatic founder or a strong leader has shaped it and the business management is strongly supporting this. By contrast, the management lack of initiative and support to an even strong corporate culture might account for this drastically weakens over time and for employees developing and supporting a new or different culture, which in some cases, albeit diverging or sensibly diverging from this, may also be the fruit of the re-interpretation of the original culture (as, for instance, in the Disney case).

The role and support of informal leaders might reveal to be paramount. Especially in the absence of a genuine leader amongst the business management, these may make or break corporate culture. Regardless of the specific circumstances, the informal leaders support to foster corporate culture is definitely invariably important.

It can be concluded that in practice corporate culture can be either shaped by a company founder or management, or developed by the employees. The latter process, however, is much more likely to be triggered by the absence of a charismatic founder or of a genuine strong leader amongst the business management, or can be initiated by employees to fill the vacuum left by the company management. Yet, the circumstance that corporate culture is developed by the employees not necessarily entails that this meets the employer expectations and wants and that it is consistent with the employer strategy and objectives. In actual fact, organizational culture should support the business strategy and policies, and needs thus to align with these. A business culture exclusively developed and shaped by employees can hardly enable employers to fully attain this objective.  

Longo, R., (2014), Who develops, shapes and controls organizational culture?; Milan: HR Professionals.

Can informal leaders help employers to shape organizational culture?

 

Organizational culture is typically intended as the set of assumptions and distinctive shared values and beliefs developed over time within an organization. So rooted and pervasive these components are perceived to be within the organizational settings as to be intended and considered by employees as norms. In practice these values, beliefs and set of assumptions are mostly, but not exclusively, reflected in the behaviour exhibited in the workplace by each individual. In actual fact it is also by observing the way employees behave that individuals coming from the external environment can identify what type of actions, conduct and values are typical of any given work environment. So firmly associated is organizational culture with actions, rather than words or writings that corporate culture is also very often referred to as “the way we do things around here.”

 

 

 

In theory, it should be a direct and primary employer’s accountability identifying and deciding the values which should be fostered and endorsed within the business in that these values should also support the attainment of the organizational strategy and as such enable employers to more smoothly attain their planned objectives and aim. Employers usually use to devise and simultaneously implement different initiatives in order to make employees aware of the values and norms underpinning the business culture and of the way the organization is expected individuals to behave within the organizational settings.

 

 

 

Employees tend to attach a growing significance to practical actions and behaviour, rather than to, for instance, internal marketing initiatives and campaigns. Whatever the content of the message an employer may try to get across, what really counts in the end is, and will invariably be, what the employer by means of its managers does, by no means what this and its management say. The inconsistency eventually emerging between what it is said and what it is actually done within the business, will surely be tantamount by individuals to the employer lack of consistency and integrity; employers should hence constantly talk the talk and walk the walk.

 

Business founders and leaders invariably aim at developing, shaping, influencing and possibly controlling organizational culture; the seminal allies they can count on to this extent are traditionally represented by their managers. Managers are in fact the individuals who have the highest visibility within the organization, those who know everyone, or virtually everyone, within the business (albeit this might not invariably be the case in big corporations) and those who have consequently the chance to talk and stay in contact with the largest number of individuals in the organization. Unquestionably, managers are in a position to potentially take the role of those who can influence organizational culture the most; notwithstanding, this is not necessarily, invariably the case in practice.

 

Individuals are likely to genuinely follow a manager whether this shows to have good leadership abilities. With specific reference to this aspect, it is particularly important to discern between the apparent respect which may derive from the hierarchical role a manager holds and the genuine respect which a manager is able to command by virtue of his/her leadership abilities. Individuals clearly take into account what managers say, but more often than not this is due to the formal role and position they hold within an organization. It would clearly be different whether managers would be able to inspire and lead other people by virtue of their personal qualities, rather than by reason of their status. Leaders nonetheless, that is to say the individuals who have the features and characteristics enabling them to be appreciated and listened to by the other people and capable to exert confidence, trust and admiration on others, are not necessarily managers. Whether this should rather be the case, leaders would be actually called informal leaders, where the term “informal” derives from the circumstance that these individuals in actual fact do neither hold a management nor a responsibility position within the organization. More often than not, these gifted individuals are unaware of the influence they exert on other people and of the remarkable practical consequences their influence actually has. As a matter of fact they naturally attract followers even though they have never attended specific coaching or training programmes to gain and develop these features.

 

Informal leaders are individuals who have the innate ability to influence the other employees’ decisions, perceptions and behaviour. Notwithstanding, these do not necessarily benefit of an organization-wide visibility and might not be hence in the position to exert their influence over the entire staff. This may be due to a number of different factors such as the organization size or the type of role these formally cover.

 

 

Irrespective of the level of visibility these might or might not have within a business, and independently of their awareness or unawareness of the influence they are able to exert over other individuals, informal leaders are invariably seen and perceived by their peers as a model and an example to imitate. Even though these individuals are not doing it intentionally or deliberately, they are able to exert a certain influence on the way their followers behave and have thus the potential to help their employers to foster the desired behaviour and to consequently contribute to shape and develop the desired business culture. 

Albeit the influence exerted by these individuals on their peers is essentially stemming from their personal traits and innate features, the circumstance that these do neither fill any formal management position nor have any responsibility role might in many instances also contribute to let them gain more easily the other employees confidence and trust. Whether employers, in a bid to obtain their full support to shape corporate culture and influence staff behaviour, should confer informal leaders a formal responsibility, their followers or part of these might suddenly stop following. In some instances, this move might even be tantamount by some of their peers to a form of betray.

 

Informal leaders are usually appreciated and admired for the way they naturally and instinctively behave, perform and relate to others so that whether their behaviour coincide with that which the employer aims at fostering within the business, their effectual support may be obtained somewhat of easily and spontaneously. This clearly represents the ideal situation, but in practice such a desirable circumstance does not invariably occurs; employers need hence to do their utmost to gain these individuals’ support. Nonetheless, employers have to be particularly cautious when trying to attain this objective; every attempt to manipulate or suddenly award informal leaders an official management role or responsibility is in fact likely to fail at best and to trigger more detrimental consequences at worst.

 

Prudence has thus to be considered as a mandatory prerequisite to the attainment of the desired aim. As discussed earlier, informal leaders are first and foremost considered as leaders just because they have some special qualities, but also because they behave righteously and perform well. Considering that these individuals are habitually valuable employees, the circumstance these are, often involuntary, perceived as leaders should hence by no means risk jeopardizing their professional growth and development.

 

Spending time with these naturally talented people can enhance managers’ confidence to discuss more thoroughly and explicitly with them, in order to elicit their support, about the behaviour, values and beliefs the organization aims at fostering and promoting within the firm. To this extent, having recourse to metaphors and figurative language can definitely enable managers to be clearer and to approach the issue in a more informal way. These conversations can indeed help managers not only to know informal leaders opinion about corporate culture, but also that of their colleagues, which they are extremely likely to know, and to eventually redress their views about the way corporate culture is fostered and endorsed within the business.

 

Managers can also take advantage of the circumstance that informal leaders are held in high esteem to approach them when they are conversing with their peers in order to be involved in these group discussions and progressively gain a direct knowledge of the employees’ idea about the organization and its culture. This is indeed a powerful way for formal leaders to be known more in depth by staff in somewhat of an informal fashion and be appreciated and recognised as leaders themselves.

 

All too often employees have a wrong and negative image of their manager, and even more markedly of the business executives, just because they do not actually know these and perceive these as distant. Informal leaders can reveal to be precious employers’ and more specifically managers’ partners to this extent. What matters the most is ensuring that everything is done with transparency; creating two-way communications opportunities and averting which informal leaders may be perceived by their colleagues as playthings or as instruments in the employer hands is definitely crucial. Whether this should be the case, employers have to be ready to face the remarkable and at times even irreversible effects produced in the aftermath of the existence of such circumstances.

 

Whether managers should deem informal leaders to also have the capabilities to officially take managerial responsibilities and should hence decide to confer them a formal management role, provided that these are actually interested in it, this move would enable managers to stably benefit of the knowledge these individuals have of the other employees feelings and to secure the support of effective, staunch allies in the process of developing and shaping organizational culture.

 

The traits and personal attributes accounting for informal leaders to be considered and perceived as such by their colleagues are habitually represented by: honesty, integrity, sincerity, transparency and consistency. The way these individuals approach and perform their job, to wit: their level of performance, dedication, enthusiasm and energy, in many instances and to different degrees, typically also plays a considerable role. It is indeed the simultaneous existence and combination of these features and attitudes which explains why it is very likely that employers may receive an appreciable benefit from the contribution provided by these individuals in the process of developing and shaping organizational culture. 

Informal leaders can also reveal to be particularly important as employers’ partners when these have to introduce some changes within the business, even more so when change is concerned with corporate culture or “the way we do things around here.” A mundane but significant example of this is represented by the introduction of a new technology. Training informal leaders first, putting these in the position to feel sorely comfortable in the use of the new working system and ascertain the significance of its benefits, will certainly reveal extremely useful and important. Informal leaders by virtue of their natural personal attitudes will be invariably willing to help others and explain them the employer’s reasons for change, contributing thus to smooth the execution phase of the overall change process. Yet, involving these individuals in the change procedure from the very beginning enables employers to receive their genuine and full support from the outset and consequently helps organizations to more effectively contrast the restraining forces to cultural change eventually emerging during the unfolding of the process.

 

Unfortunately, informal leaders not invariably coincide with the “good guys”; at times it can also occur that are the “bad guys” those who inspire their peers, are perceived by these as a model and regrettably attract followers. This is indeed a very bad situation, likely to cause employers to experience particularly unpleasant hardships.

 

Albeit it clearly depends on the circumstances, the process by means of which managers should try to reverse the situation is in general similar to that suggested for these establishing good relationships with and receiving support from the “good guys.” Exacerbate the use of the disciplinary leverage is unlikely to enable employers to firmly and effectively overcome the problem. Individuals might feint to change in order to avoid penalties and avert to risk losing their job or part of their salary, but in practice resorting to coercive measures is unlikely to produce long-lasting results. In order to effectively solve the problem managers should therefore try to communicate and liaise with these individuals and find out what actually is behind their undesirable behaviour. More often than not resentment for past events, perception of unfairness and inequalities, particularly stressing working conditions, problems with their line managers and other similar circumstances can be at the basis of individual disappointment and rebellious behaviour. The causes of such a negative behaviour can be in some instances associated with the deterioration of organizational climate at large; employers are fostering a type of culture which for some reasons is completely differently perceived by the employees. These express hence their dissatisfaction and uncomfortableness exhibiting a type of behaviour that is the exact opposite of that fostered and expected by the employer. When those who misbehave, nonetheless, are informal leaders, who are assumed to invariably have a number of followers, the negative impact and consequences are likely to be even more catastrophic. 

 

Devoting these individuals attention and giving them the chance to be heard is clearly important. Yet, giving these individuals the opportunity to express themselves and openly relate their negative experiences as regards their and their peers life within the organizational premises, can reveal to be a priceless opportunity for establishing a positive link between employers and these employees and jointly investigating and identifying effective remedies and win-win solutions, ultimately leading to restore mutual trust and respect.

 

 

 

In these specific cases thinking to offer formal responsibility positions to this type of informal leaders could reveal to be particularly detrimental. It could be deemed as spreading a message based on everything but integrity, other employees could think that it takes to misbehave to gain visibility and get promotions. Such an organizational move could be tantamount in the extreme to organizational suicide.

 

 

 

After a while, whether these individuals should completely redress their behaviour and become genuinely and effectively supportive of the business cause, it would clearly be correct and appropriate to offer them, as to the other employees, growth and development prospects. These decisions should invariably be based on strong and objective grounds and preferably only after a considerable length of time has passed from the misbehaving informal leaders’ “redemption.”

 

 

 

All in all, the circumstance that de facto informal leaders influence organizational culture can be considered as an axiomatic fact. These can be ultimately associated with the good and evil of organizational culture; informal leaders can indeed make or break it. These individuals can either effectually support and help employers to develop and shape corporate culture, or play a negative role building and raising strong, insurmountable barriers to its development. In both cases, managers need to be extra vigilant and devote the required efforts to the identification and development of the right measures, and eventually countermeasures, to support employers in the achievement of their intended objectives and aim.

 

 

 

Constructive or disruptive that the informal leaders’ activity can reveal to be, these individuals have to be invariably approached and an open and transparent two-way communication process established with them in order to understand their position, reconcile the two eventually different points of view and try to receive their genuine support and help.

 

 

Longo, R., (2012), Can informal leaders help employers to shape organisational culture?; Milan: HR Professionals [online].