Organizational culture defines the possible link between man and processes. This link between man and function is a space that allows to intervene and transform the task into a challenge to be carried out by choice. There the organization receives the most genuine impulse to weave its vision from each position into a common purpose together with its people.
For the sole purpose of aligning listening with respect to the idea proposed here, we understand Organizational Culture as the way in which the conversation between “processes & people” happens, thus defining the link state that reflects the operation of the organization.
On this basis, I find that organizational culture manifests itself through the management context *. There, in the management context, it is where it is perceived, where it happens, where it is expressed.
For this reason it is that working in the management context it is possible to install a culture change by choice, since the context defines the way and scope of people's participation, and when the organizational offer allows people to choose to do the same things in a different way, the transformation is felt.
It is interesting to observe the organization as a being. There are adherents and dissenters to this idea as is known. We consider it a practical metaphor as a format to transmit the concept, since, like a person, the Organizational Being has various systems that determine the state of organizational health. In this way the organizational fabric - a social fabric at scale - reflects its state.
Each of the strategic areas of the organization can be seen as a functional organ that fulfills a specific mission, and much cause can be seen for constant organizational dysfunctions with these analogies.
The logistics division could be the heart whose mission is to ensure proper distribution to the farthest sin. The eyes may well be assimilated to the ability to observe, in the same way associate the ears with the ability to listen organizationally, their muscles with the ability to manage and the consequent need for permanent training. In this way, the comparison can continue until the nervous, lymphatic, respiratory systems, etc. are compared. with the intricate processes that functionally and strategically link the organization as a whole.
The way in which the organization coordinates its functions is like a mirror of its functional health, of its management capacity and, consequently, of its aptitude for achievement.
In order to measure the possible impact that this metaphor allows in terms of intervention opportunity, let's imagine the following. If we could consciously converse with each cell in our body, and ask what it needs to accomplish its task more efficiently, we could say that each of our cells has the conscious ability to detect areas of opportunity.
If in addition to that we knew how to manage that area of opportunity detected and coordinate it, as a specific action, with the other cells with which it manages in common, we would probably initiate a process of continuous improvement limited only in its ability to notice new areas of opportunity and coordinate actions to capitalize on them for joint benefit.
This biological illusion that does not exist to date by this rational path, is available in organizations, since considering each organizational cell as a person, allows it to be interested in detecting areas of opportunity in the way of doing its work, and then capitalizing on them in its daily management.
To install this state of participation and management in each cell, in each position, the organization must consider each employee as a person capable of contributing, of generating value. Instead, today he considers it a "resource" later, his raison d'être in the organization is to properly execute - as an obedient cell - the task assigned to him in the process.
This is the scope of the culture change that we proclaim. The subject of the culture change is the Organizational Being, and the focus of that change is paradigmatic.
The first challenge is: transform the paradigm of Employee = Resource, by that of Employee = Strategic Generator of Value. This thought is decisive, and as can be seen, it casts little doubt on considering the person as the source of the action, since it is the person, and only he, who uses the organizational resources, thus achieving the objective achieved.
We consider it an evident fact that, in operational and functional terms, there are two well-defined areas in any organization, namely: “Installed Capacity and Generative Capacity”. In the same order of ideas is that we consider the person as "carrier and trigger" of generative capacity.
Starting from this paradigm, the generative capacity of people for joint benefit can be summoned, considering that the generation of value is a human fact, and people generate value deliberately, only when it makes sense to them, and from there they can take ownership of the process in which it participates and execute it by choice.
That is why the second challenge is: "develop the organizational ability to summon the Choice Factor. " That is, learning to consider the employee as a person as powerful and creative as the most notable executive, and from there present the organizational challenge in a complete way - so that he understands the game in which he participates - then let him know the conditions under which The organization and the way it has designed to do things are subject - so that it understands the rules of the game - and starting from there, showing it what the reason for its position is - so that it understands its part in the game - and from from there develop your task (your part in the game) deploying all your generative capacity for joint benefit.
That is what the weight that Organizational Culture imposes as a possible reality is about and the most interesting part of all that flow is the leading place recognized for each person, whether it is reached by conviction or convenience.
