Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ANALYSIS

Culture and Change in a Local Church Don Pierro Azusa Pacific University

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT A Local Church Culture A local Glendora church is the organization of choice for this cultural assessment and strategy for leading future change. Local Glendora church has been in the community of Glendora for more than twenty years. The church has transitioned through a small handful of senior pastors over its history. The current senior pastor is a former youth minister from a church in Hawaii. He is forty-two years old and a full-fledged member of generation X. The congregation is an unusually mixed bag of generations. There is a significant population of old guard members age sixty and above, many of who date back to the earliest days of the church. For the most part the old guard seems to be quiet and passive. The old guard seems most content when things neither move too fast nor too slow. The old guard appears to be happy if the church just chugs along. There is also a population in the congregation of middle guard age forty-five to sixty that appears to be composed of both long and short time members. The middle guard comes and goes for the most part. They are not particularly active with the church or with each other and seem to have little interest in either, aside from checking the; I went to church box off their weekly to do list. This group also seems most content when things neither move too fast nor too slow, and they are even more quiet and passive than the old guard. The next population of note in the congregation is the young guard age twenty-five to forty-five. The young guard is a very interesting group. They seem to be the most influential and in charge of the three populations in the congregation described here so far. There are a significant number of young guarders serving as elders on the session board of the church. Looking through the lens of an old or middle guarder, it would seem paradoxical that any, let alone many, of the elders are young guarders. Furthermore, in a church that seems to be

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT determined to be content when things neither move too fast nor too slow, it is difficult to get a sense of what is going on with respect to leadership. Does leadership have an agenda? If not, then why not? If so, then what is the agenda of leadership? What makes it so difficult to determine if there is any leadership to speak of? What is wanted, needed, and possible in terms of leadership for this group? To delve into the answers to the above questions and others, it was important to get an accurate assessment of the culture of this local Glendora church as well as its leadership. This was done using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument created by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument consists of six questions representing six key dimensions of organizational culture. Each question has four alternatives. Respondents divide 100 points among these four alternatives depending on the extent to which each alternative is similar to their own organization. Respondents give a higher number of points to the alternative that is most similar to their organization. Cameron and Quinn (2011) assert that culture is more powerful than market conditions in successful organizations, their most important competitive advantage, the most powerful factor they all highlight as a key ingredient in their success-is their organizational culture (p.5). Given the market conditions of churches today of declining membership, attendance, and interest in church in general, cultural aspects of church bodies around the world may well be the key to a successful future. Three members of the local Glendora Church completed the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. Two of the respondents were from the middle guard population group. One of the respondents was from the old guard population group. The graphic result of the assessment for the old guard respondent is displayed in figure 1 below. In the figure, the red line represents the assessment of current culture and the green line represents the assessment of the

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT preferred culture. As can be seen from the graph, the old guard respondent assessed the culture of the local Glendora church as clan. So much so, that the results are off the chart. Figure 1 Old Guard Respondents Competing Values Framework

In the case of the old guard respondent, the preferred culture was also that of a clan although slightly less of a clan and still off the chart. With respect to adhocracy, the old guard respondent assessed the culture as quite low both now and preferred. Adhocracy refers to the creative aspect of a culture; a major goal of an adhocracy is to foster adaptability, flexibility, and creativity if uncertainty, ambiguity, and information overload are typical (Cameron, 2011, p.49). The low assessment of the old guard respondent with respect to adhocracy would indicate a perception of low presence or need to foster adaptability. The old guard respondent also assessed the local Glendora church as quite low both now

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT and preferred with respect to hierarchy. Cameron and Quinn (2011) contend that, hierarchy cultures are characterized by a controlling environment (p.43). Assessing the local Glendora churchs culture as low in hierarchy both now and preferred would indicate a perception of low presence or need for a controlling environment. The market assessment by the old guard respondent showed a low assessment in the current culture and a marginally higher assessment in the preferred culture. The market, or compete culture, is transactional and market driven. The core values that dominate market-type organizations are competitiveness and productivity (Cameron, 2011, p. 44). Although both the current and preferred culture assessments are relatively low with respect to market, the increase in the preferred assessment would indicate a desire by the old guard respondent for a little more competitiveness and productivity in the culture. Figures 2 and 3 below show the graphic assessment results of the two middle guard respondents. Most noticeable on both figures is the dominance of clan as the essentially culture of the local church organization. The middle guard respondents assessed the organization almost identically with respect to clan, and at about half the level of the old guard respondent. The middle guard respondents also assessed the organization almost identically with respect to adhocracy. Both middle guard respondents assessed the organizational adhocracy to be at least twice that of the assessment by the old guard respondent. In the case of both middle guard respondents, now and preferred adhocracy are the same. The indication with respect to adhocracy for both the old and middle guard respondents is that however they may see it, it is fine as it is. As to market factors in the culture of the local Glendora church, the middle guard respondents were again very close in their assessments of the current culture. While middle guard respondent 1 again assessed current and preferred almost matching with respect to market,

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT middle guard respondent 2 indicated a preference for a slight decrease in the market aspects of the culture. Figure 2 Middle Guard Respondent 1 Competing Values Framework

Figure 3 Middle Guard Respondent 2 Competing Values Framework

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT The most significant assessment departure between the middle guard respondents was in the area of hierarchy. Middle guard respondent 2 assessed the current organizational culture with respect to hierarchy at triple the level of middle guard respondent 1, and the preferred level at 2.5 times the level of middle guard respondent 1. This result would be indicative of the value of a larger sample in further studies of this organization. The most distinct observation that I draw from the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument results generated from the three respondents is that the local Glendora church is very much a clan culture. The off the charts results generated by the old guard respondent would indicate the possibility of the clan aspect being overboard. The results of the two middle guard respondents would indicate that the clan aspect is within reasonable boundaries. Here again is an indication of the value of a larger sample. Taking a closer look at the clan aspect of the local Glendora churchs culture and combining it with the observations shared in the first few paragraphs above, it could be asserted that this organization may be a clan of clans. As such, there is an opportunity for consolidation of the clans into a united organizational body. Herein may lay the basis for organizational change in the local Glendora church. Cameron and Quinn suggest individual change as a key to culture change. A change in culture, in the end, depends on the implementation of behaviors by individuals in the organization that reinforce the new cultural values and are consistent with them (Cameron, 2011, p. 135). The authors recommend the use of the Management Skills Assessment Instrument to both assess management skills of leadership and to determine areas of competency to enhance in the direction of a culture change initiative. Cameron and Quinns formula for organizational change involves three key phases: Diagnosis, interpretation, and implementation. In many

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT respects, Cameron and Quinns formula emulates and parallels John Kotters eight-stage process for change. In conceptualizing a strategy for leading future change in the local Glendora church it would be ideal to combine the methods of Cameron and Quinn with that of Kotter into a hybrid of organizational change. Beginning with diagnosis, I would recommend the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument be executed by all of management and at least ten percent of the membership of the local Glendora church. As suggested by Cameron and Quinn, the leadership as to the current and preferred cultures of the organization would then reach consensus about their assessment results. As suggested by Kotter, the consensus would be used to create a sense of urgency as to the preferred culture as well as a guiding coalition of the leadership that reached the consensus. Stepping next into interpretation with Cameron and Quinn, the leadership team would identify which culture changes need to occur. Identify which quadrants will increase in emphasis and which will decrease in emphasis (Cameron, 2011, p. 161). Next, leadership would determine what this cultural change means and does not mean as recommended by Cameron and Quinn (p. 100). Merging in Kotters step four, leadership would then develop a vision and strategy, of and for the desired organizational culture change. Moving into implementation, Cameron and Quinn and Kotter all emphasize generating and identifying short-term wins. Where Kotter recommends, consolidating gains and producing more change (Kotter, 1996, p. 131), Cameron and Quinn suggest leadership identify the various aspects of the organization that must be changed in order to reinforce the preferred culture change (Cameron, 2011, p. 162). Continuing with the implementation phase, Cameron and Quinn reinforce the implementation by engaging the individual team members with the

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT Management Skills Aptitude Instrument and creating personal improvement plans consistent with the organizational change initiative. In doing so, Kotters eighth step of anchoring the new approaches is both supported and engaged. Culture changes only after you have altered peoples actions, after the new behavior produces some group benefit for a period of time, and after people see the connection between the new actions and the performance improvement (Kotter, 1996, p. 156). In summary, my strategy for leading future change for the local Glendora church would focus on the how in order to generate the what. Cameron and Quinn, and Kotters methods combined, are ideal for supporting an organization in determining what the culture change initiative should be. Somewhat counter intuitively the implementation of their methods can generate the organizational change initiative in the process of implementing it. More or less, its true, we built the bridge as we walked on it (Quinn, 1996, p. 83) I do not know what the local Glendora church should change in its organizational culture, and I doubt that they know either at least at the conscious level. I do know that with the help of the methods of Cameron and Quinn, and Kotter we could readily discover and implement it together.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT References Cameron, J., Quinn, R, (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kotter, J., (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Quinn, R. (1996). Deep change, discovering the leader within. New York: Harper and Collins.

10