How Do You Get Anything Done Around Here?
Marian L. Houser and Astrid Sheil
Case Overview
Kate Elliott joined Donaldson Family Foods to assist the company’s growth with her creative ideas in new product development. While president and CEO Jeff Donaldson assured her of the opportunity to be innovative and productive, her own team warned her that the “black hole” would prove otherwise. As Kate confidently moved forward with her marketing proposal, she felt betrayed by senior management and the very organizational symbol about which she had been warned.
Learning Objective
The case illustrates the impact of organizational symbols in creating and perpetuating an organization’s culture.
Keywords and Definitions
Black hole—a symbolic metaphor for the place and the amount of time it takes to get decisions back from management
Collaboration—the process of bringing together all ideas to be incorporated in the decision making process
Hierarchical style of leadership—a traditional process of top-down decision making with little input from organizational members
Organizational culture—the unique sense of the place that organizations generate through ways of doing business, and ways of communicating about the organization
Organizational symbolism—metaphors, stories, myths, and rituals that express the assumptions taken for granted, that help to reproduce and reinforce the culture.
Perceptual gaps—different understandings of the same issue, between management and their employees.
Theoretical Briefing
Organizational culture is the set of shared behaviors, beliefs, and values that influences how an organization operates and how its members relate to one another. An organizational symbol is the primary way an organization’s culture is understood. Symbols are studied because they help members analyze and solve problems in the organization. The messages created from these symbols evolve from the verbal and nonverbal communicative behaviors of leaders within an organization. Because of this, they ultimately provide the basis through which members learn the methods necessary to be successful within an organization’s culture (Putnam & Sorensen, 1982; Jones, 1996).
The most consistent view of organizational symbols is that they have an ability to organize what employees experience within the organization. Anything ranging from a corporate logo, a longstanding joke, a particularly valuable myth passed down through the years, or a well-maintained ritual may constitute a symbol, which stands for and identifies an organization or its stance on business issues and dealings. Thus, symbols do more than simply stand for something else; symbols actually perform a functional role. They provide a method for communicating or conveying meaning and understanding of organizational life and ultimately of an organization’s culture.
If the most important symbols can be identified in the organization’s culture, then it is easier to understand the power they create and maintain (Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1996). What often occurs in organizations is that the very symbols that employees use to guide their behavior are also used by management to gain control (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988). In this way, they can serve to support a hierarchical organizational structure.
Organizational literature frequently discusses the value and role of organizational symbolism. This case study investigates employee perceptions of the “black hole” symbol and other influential organizational symbols in a privately held food manufacturing company. Employees have described the “black hole” as the office of the president—where requests for decisions go in but never come out. It has become a symbol of this organization’s culture and ultimately stands for how decisions are made. The president, however, has recently embarked on a new path to improve business productivity by attempting to change the organization’s culture. In this endeavor, he has sought to erase all evidence of the “black hole” for which he had been severely criticized in earlier years. He flattened the organization by removing layers of rank and converted the decision-making structure from a hierarchical, authoritarian style to a collaborative process. In addition, he hired young, energetic employees to innovatively move the company forward.
In order to evaluate the culture of this organization, it is important to reveal existing perceptions of the “black hole” as well as other organizational symbols. It is also important to analyze the gap in perceptions of these symbols between employee levels (rank). This case study presents the organizational symbol of the “black hole” from the employees’ perspectives in order to determine if this remnant from the past has any presence or power on the current corporate culture.
In preparing for this case, it might be helpful to consider viewing it from additional theoretical perspectives:
Uncertainty Reduction Theory—Berger and Calabrese (1975, 1979, 1987) believe that our main purpose in talking to people is to “make sense” out of our interactions. Reducing uncertainty increases confidence and understanding of the environment, eases anxiety, and bridges cultural gaps (see William Gudykunst, Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory, 1985, 1988, 1995).
Expectancy Violations Theory—Burgoon (1978, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993) writes,
“Expectancies exert significant influence on people’s interaction patterns, on their impressions of one another, and on the outcomes of their interactions. Violations of expectations in turn may arouse and distract their recipients, shifting greater attention to the violator and the meaning of the violation itself” (Burgoon, 1995). “Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Applications of Expectancy Violations Theory.” In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (pp. 194–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Symbolic interactionism—Blumer (1969) posits that there are three core principles of symbolic interactionism. The first one deals with meaning, the second with language, and the third with thought. These dimensions lead to conclusions about a person’s self-awareness and his or her socialization into a larger community. The construction of social reality starts with the idea that people act toward each other on the basis of meanings that they assign to those people or things. Blumer’s second premise is that meaning is established only through social interaction. Thus, meaning is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism (Griffin, 1997). Symbolic interaction in an organization is “a stimulus that has a learned meaning and value for people” (Hall, 1980). Symbolic interactionism also posits that an individual’s interpretation of symbols is filtered by her own thought processes. “Structuring Symbolic Interaction: Communication and Power.” In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (p. 50). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Discussion Questions
1. Name three corporate symbols that Kate encountered and offer your interpretation of their meaning.
2. There seem to be a lot of unspoken rules at Donaldson Family Foods. Can you name three of them?
3. What would you do if you were in Kate’s position? Would you continue to wait for an answer or would you proceed forward in order to complete the project on time, as initially requested?
4. Have you ever been in a job situation where you felt there was a gap between what your supervisor said and how things really got done in the organization? Explain.
5. Do you think Kate is overreacting to the situation? What are the signals or symbols you can point to that support your position?
6. Do you think that Jeff Donaldson is purposely standing in Kate’s way? If so, what would be the purpose of not communicating with her?
7. We often talk about how important it is for managers to share timely information with their employees. Are there any situations in which you think it would be better for management not to communicate with its staff?
8. Kate perceived she was in charge of the project, but began to feel this was not the case. What are some of the potential problems that come from a gap in perception? How might a gap in perception affect corporate morale?
References and Resources
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 656–665.
Bernick, C. L. (2001). When your culture needs a makeover. Harvard Business Review, 53–61.
Berger, C. R., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Uncertainty and communication. In B. Dervin & M. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences, (pp. 21–66).
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sense-making. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp.131–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Galpin, T. (1996, March). Connecting culture to organizational change. HR Magazine, 84–89.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18, 657–693.
Jablin, F., & Putnam, L. (2000). The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, M. O. (1996). Studying organizational symbolism: What, how, why? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996, Winter). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making, Sloan Management Review, 9–22.
Maccoby, M. (2000, January-February). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 69–78.
Myrsiades, L. S. (1987). Corporate stories as cultural communications in organizational settings. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 84–120.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126–147.
Pilotta, J. J., Widman, T., & Jasko, S. A. (1988). Meaning and action in the organizational setting: An interpretive approach. Communication Yearbook, 11, 310–334.
Pondy, L., Frost, P., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Putnam, L. L, & Sorenson, R. L. (1982). Equivocal messages in organizations. Human Communication Research 8, 114–132.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D. D. (1989). Adhering to organizational culture: What does it mean? Why does it matter?” Group and Organizational Studies, 14 (4) 453–500.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.
Van Buskirk, W., & McGrath, D. (1999). Organizational cultures as holding environments: A psychodynamic look at organizational symbolism. Human Relations, 52, 805–832.
Eisenberg, E., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sense-making. In G.M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 131–150). Norwood, NH: Ablex.
Jones, M. O. (1996). Studying organizational symbolism: What, how, why? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 375–408). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Sorensen, R. L. (1982). Equivocal messages in organizations. Human Communication Research, 8, 114–132.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Van Buskirk, W., & McGrath, D. (1999). Organizational cultures as holding environments: A psychodynamic look at organizational symbolism. Human Relations, 52, 805–832.