CHANGING YOUR DEPARTMENT’S ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
MANAGEMENT
One of the key functions of any fire chief is to organize the department’s human and material resources into an efficient, effective entity capable of service delivery and compatible with the department’s mission. Doing that sometimes requires change. But it is impossible to institute change without having a handle on the values, beliefs, and behavior of the individuals that make up the organization.
THE MEANING OF “ORGANIZATION”
Curt Tausky, in his book Work Organizations (F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970), suggests that the term “organization” refers both to structure and a process. By “structure” he means predictable unit activities and predictable relations between units; by “process” he means bringing order out of chaos. Paul Meadows agrees with him on the latter point, stating that “organization” is a metaphor referring to the experience of collective coordination and orderliness (see “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis” by Linda Smircich in the September 28, 1983 issue of Administrative Science Quarterly). This process of bringing order and structure to an organization is the management function of organizing.
It’s helpful to view the structure of organizations metaphorically—to use a familiar concept to help us understand another, less familiar concept or term. It’s not uncommon for us to put the term “organization” in perspective by using such metaphors as machines; organisms; instruments for task accomplishment; theaters for the performance of roles, dramas, and scripts; and political arenas oriented around the pursuit and display of power. But what do these “machines” do, or what activities take place in these “theaters” that are unique from any other activity?
Robert Presthus, in The Organizational Society: An Analysis and a Theory (Vintage Books, 1962), comments that organizations are large, fairly permanent social systems designed to achieve limited objectives through the coordinated activities of their members. Robert H. Waterman continues that line of reasoning when he says that organizations exist for the single purpose of helping people to reach ends together that they could not achieve individually. And the organization is unique in that management not only can assign responsibilities and activities different from those outside the formal organization but can go as far as assigning expectations and even values.
Community fire protection is one such activity. The cost of fire apparatus, equipment, training, and so on mandates a collective effort. It’s true that individuals might protect themselves by installing automatic sprinklers, but they cannot help their neighbors without an organized fire brigade or fire department.
Perhaps these facts are obvious. Few if any of us would question these organizational objectives that Presthus referred to as “manifest goals.” But Presthus and others have suggested that there are other reasons for organizations as well. He identifies certain “latent” or unofficial goals for organizations that include members’ aspirations for security, recognition, and self-realization. Talcott Parsons, in Structure and Process in Modern Societies (The Free Press, 1960), echoes the thought when he says that organizations are social units deliberately constructed and reconstructed in order to seek specific goals and provide meaning to its members. And Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, in In Search of Excellence (Harper & Row, 1982), believe that this need for meaning is so strong that members are often willing to yield a fair degree of latitude or freedom to institutions in exchange for this sense of meaning.
THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
It is this view of organizations that has given rise to a new paradigm of organizational theory: the organizational culture perspective. It asserts that organizational culture is the unseen and unobservable force that is always behind activities that can be seen and observed. An organization’s culture is comprised of many intangibles such as its values, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, behavioral norms, artifacts, and behavioral patterns; R.H. Kilmann (see The Organizational Culture Perspective by J. Steven Ott, The Dorsey Press, 1989) puts it in a nutshell when he says that culture is to the organization what personality is to the individual —a hidden yet unifying theme that provides meaning, direction, and mobilization.
“Organizational culture” implies that culture exists in the organization, not the other way around. Organizational culture is a way of looking at and thinking about the behavior of and within organizations. The paradigm provides a perspective for understanding what is occurring within an organization and can be useful in predicting how organizations and people within them will act and react in different circumstances.
While not all organizations may possess their own unique culture, many do. Edgar H. Schein, in Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass, 1985), says that culture is a learned product of group experience and is found only within definable groups that possess a significant history. One of its most mysterious aspects is how it originates. Schein believes that culture is the direct result of the activities of the leaders of organizations and movements —that leaders create the culture and manage it (although he suggests that it may only be possible to manage its consequences). He says that in some instances leaders may even be forced to destroy the culture to ensure the continued survival of the organization.
APPLYING THEORY TO REAL LIFE
What does organizational culture mean to the fire service manager? First, fire departments possess a degree of order based on their paramilitary heritage. Second, a fairly rigid structure is normally in place based on our deep roots in the organizational theory of bureaucracy and our scientific management traditions (the principles of Max Weber, Frederick W. Taylor, and Henri Fayol are alive and well, especially where there’s a merit or civil service system in place). Questions remain, however: How do things actually get accomplished in your organization? Are things done because of the order and rigidity or in spite of them? Do things ever change or are things done in a certain manner simply because that’s the way they’ve always been done? Does anyone even know why things are done a certain way? Do new programs and innovations fail after some initial success? Can you answer these questions?
This is the culture at work. You can’t see it but you probably can feel it. Things are done a certain way for so long that the reasons for doing them become submerged in the subconscious. Riding on the tailboard is an example. We used to ride on the tailboard because it was necessary for someone to ride there on a steamer to bring the boiler up. Production of new steamers was discontinued around 1914. Yet 76 years later the tradition of riding on the back step continues in some departments. Why? Well, that’s just the way we’ve always done it! Unsafe? we think. No one in our department has ever been injured while riding back there!
Do not infer that cultures are always dysfunctional. Quite the contrary, the basic values of most fire departments are very positive. Our underlying assumptions about the sacredness of human life and our dedication to ease suffering and prevent damage and destruction to property are very noble, indeed. The fact that we have our own traditions, symbols, language, and behavior norms is certainly consistent with other organizational cultures. However, we must recognize and understand our culture so that we can manage it properly. The fire chief is the custodian of the department’s culture; it’s his responsibility to teach and practice the customs that make the culture strong.
Organizational culture only becomes a problem when it becomes dysfunctional. For example, let’s use two scenarios. First a fire department must normally operate within a host culture such as a municipal or county organization. Each culture will be different to the degree that the beliefs and values of its founders and leaders have been historically different. Within the body of the host culture there are many other cultures and subcultures. Because each culture will have its own unique values and beliefs, the possibility for conflict is greatly increased. The fire chief must realize the differences to reduce friction and to maintain the health and well-being of the fire department’s culture: A culture is susceptible to external forces and must be adaptive in order to survive.
Second, over a period of time cultures can become stagnant and totally resistant to innovation and change. To remain competitive with other cultures within the parent or host culture (such as the parks department, libraries, and the police force), the department must remain dynamic and innovative and integrate new ideas and concepts into its culture. Failure to do so will result in the weakening or destruction of the culture.
Just as the fire department exists within the host culture, there are subcultures that exist within the fire department. These subcultures tend to be more fluid than their host culture. They may be formed because of any number of reasons. Some subcultures organize around political issues. Others may result because of shift differences. Some may be functional and others may become dysfunctional. If dysfunctional subcultures are not properly handled they may eventually grow strong enough to destroy the host culture in the same manner that disease will destroy its host if not properly treated.
CHANGING THE CULTURE
It is difficult and sometimes impossible to change a culture. Nevertheless, a dysfunctional culture needs to be changed. It’s easy to change the superficial (the artifacts, the symbols, the rituals) and by doing so believe that the culture has been changed. But it is entirely another matter to change the basic values and underlying assumptions of an organization. Changing the color of a fire truck from red to lime-yellow is only a symbolic change, since a fire truck is just an artifact (tool) of the culture; however, changing the apparatus color does not mean that safety—the real issue —has suddenly become a basic value of the culture, because the peopie within the organization comprise its real culture. Cultures (people) resist change because they perceive that they are fighting for their survival. If the reason for the paint change is not incorporated into the value system of the culture, real change has not occurred—no doubt the apparatus will be repainted red 15 minutes after the fire chief who painted it limeyellow is separated from the department.
Obviously, this is an oversimplistic example. The point is not simplistic, however. Real change only can occur if the leader successfully “unfreezes” the old assumptions and replaces them with new assumptions and then “refreezes” them into the subconscious of the culture. The degree of success in this process depends on the leader’s vision and dedication. He won’t be able to change the culture by himself but must earn the trust of the membership and demonstrate that change is necessary. Change only occurs when the new membership embraces new values and ideas. Eventually it may be possible to transform the culture into an innovative culture that embraces change readily.
If the organizational culture is totally dysfunctional, it may be necessary to destroy the culture completely and replace it with a new, functional culture. This is the extreme case, but I have had to do it. It requires radical surgery and should only be undertaken as a last resort. It is a painful, destabilizing process. But it is entirely worth the effort if it ensures the longterm success of the organization. Once the old values and assumptions have been removed, the leader can begin to replace them with new, more functional ones. Over a period of time, a new culture will emerge that embraces the desired values and beliefs.
A word to the wise, however: Any new chief should be very cautious about making changes. Before attempting change, the new chief must assess the organization’s culture and understand how it works. Failure to do so will result in the failure of any attempt to change the status quo.
