Fig. 15.1
Eight axes of cultural contexts that may be sources of organizational conflicts (adapted from E. Meyer, Cultural Map, HBR, 2014). Different colored shapes represent individual or group culturally favored operational points on the different domains. By identifying which axes have the widest divergence of individual profiles within an organization, one can devise coping strategies to ensure that decision-making and communication, or other processes, do not falter
Team-building exercises, or use of organizational consultants and facilitators have also been productive in our experience, particularly when the leadership of a practice or organization is part of the conflict that may be holding an organization back from higher performance. Attention to cultural dynamics and proactive discussion or training in cultural issues may be particularly important when practices are consolidating or merging, or when other significant shifts are afoot.
Case: Succession Challenges
Cougar and Lugar Pathology had been doing well since its founding over 20 years ago by Kit Cougar and Bill Lugar. They had solidified their geographic reach by bringing in all the hospitals within a 100-mile radius using their model of top-tier lab services and consultative “always available” mantra. Things had gone well as they had brought in new associates to support the model. Lugar was gone now, having retired to Arizona near his grandchildren, but Kit still seemed engaged, though he had always had a penchant for diverse interests, everything from high-altitude mountain-bike racing to classic cars. You joined the practice 2 years ago when Lugar retired with ambitions to bring your molecular training to bear on the next generation of growth for the group of ten pathologists and a lone PhD. But while organized as a professional corporation, the group really ran pretty much as a sole-proprietorship under Kit’s benevolent wisdom and ample energy. Even when Lugar was around, he mostly did the job of picking up any loose ends that Kit might have missed as he pursued the grand design.
Lately, some of the newer hires have been voicing concern over commiting significant resources to seeming tangential ventures. At an inopportune time, this low-level grumbling came unexpectedly to Kit’s knowledge through a nonphysician employee of one of their client hospitals. The very next morning, Kit delivered a letter of resignation specifying that in 3 months he would be out the door. In the interim, he would cooperate to train and orient whomever they chose to lead the organization.
This earthquake-like announcement immediately provoked a call by two of the senior partners to the group’s legal counsel to establish what their corporate bylaws stated about governance. Not much. They called a meeting of the group to map a plan to transition to a new governance model. After a rather acrimonious meeting in which all sorts of finger-pointing took place (“Well, if you hadn’t gone blabbing to Nancy, we wouldn’t be in this mess…” etc.), the senior leaders recognized that reorganization was going to be a challenge on many fronts. While recounting the boardroom drama to your wife afterwards, she says, “It sounds like the group could use a therapist, or at least a good consultant. Have you ever talked with the Ponds, you know, that pleasant older pair we sometimes see at church? I think they have some sort of organizational behavior background.”