orgpersonlong

The final score derived from the Organizational Energy Index allows you to gain an insight into an organizational
personality through what is termed the Organization Personality Type. There are four basic personalities possible –
Visionary-Adaptive, Collaborative-Supportive, Cautious-Controlling, and Suspicious-Defensive. As with human
personalities the Organization Personality Type is one that is deeply rooted in both hereditary and developmental
factors. This also means that like with human personalities, change in organizational behaviour is not easy.

Type 1: Visionary-Adaptive Organizational Personality

In the Visionary-Adaptive Organization you won’t see displays of sick system syndrome. High emotion and knowledge scores suggest
an environment where change is encouraged and there is a constant challenging of assumptions. Communications is open,
inclusive, ongoing, and sought out leading to double-loop learning – which means that what is learned through two-way
communications and feedback is re-incorporated back into what is done next. There is a high level of creativity and productivity,
decision-making autonomy is highly decentralized, and the organizational layers of reporting are kept to a minimum.

The Visionary-Adaptive organization generally experiences low levels of workplace stress, absenteeism, and employee turnover.
Teamwork and mentoring is common and a balance between personal and workplace needs is encouraged. Relationships are built
on mutual trust, shared understanding, and collaboration. Leadership follows a transformational and servant-leadership style of
behaviour where the emphasis in on getting the best out of people rather than issuing dictates and demanding performance based on
intimidation.

Drawing from the 6-Sytem Network model, we see in the Visionary-Adaptive organization a reasoned sharing of authority where
personnel are not afraid of making decisions on their own and “thinking out of the box” when they have to. Those within the
organization know their responsibilities and there is regular accountability for actions associated with all levels of authority. In addition
to communications being open and honest it is also two-way, meaning that personnel not only get the information they need when they
need it – but they also have plenty of opportunity for providing both input and feedback and being listened to. There is broad
connectivity to other organizations, community groups and individuals that are impacted by the actions of the organization and there is
excellent cooperation among groups and individuals within the organization and with those external to the organization.

Type 2: Collaborative-Supportive Organizational Personality

It is in the Collaborative-Supportive Organization where you will start seeing minor symptoms of sick system syndrome. A moderate to
high emotion factor score combined with a low to moderate knowledge score is indicative of an organization where two-way
communications is inconsistent and only moderate levels of trust exist in leaders, managers and the organizational personality.

There is often an emotional disconnect in such organizations where, despite best intentions, the default behaviour of senior managers
and leaders is on meeting measurable targets rather than on mentoring and nurturing. Change is generally accepted as a given but
not necessarily well managed due to perceived threats to personal power, pride, and profit.

In the Collaborative-Supportive Organization the 6-System Network – comprised of responsibility, accountability, and authority – places
a heavier demand on employee responsibility and accountability than authority. This means a diminished sense of empowerment
and the sense of frustration that comes with having high expectations imposed on an individual but not a parallel provision of the tools
and power necessary to do the job. In addition to communications being inconsistent in terms of quality and quantity, connectivity is
also weak – the organization is not well networked to the community it serves and with those it impacts. Finally, cooperation among
individuals and groups both internally and externally is not well nurtured and is often uneven and inconsistent.

Both crises and contentious organizational issues in the Collaborative-Supportive Organization are viewed as being something to be
managed, contained, and controlled with less emphasis given to exploring internal reasons for such events to be occurring.
Personnel generally feel supported and respected – as long as they don’t ask tough questions or offer criticism of goals and
objectives – but they are sometimes unclear about the direction of the organization and how they and their unit fit in.

Type 3: Cautious-Controlling Organizational Personality

A low to moderate emotion score combined with a moderate to high knowledge score suggests an organizational environment where
the emotional needs of personnel are second to organizational objectives that are usually driven by numerical performance targets
and financial bottom lines. This can breed suspicion, a lack of peak productivity, higher than average turnover of staff, and diminished
morale. It is a fertile breeding ground for a sick system syndrome.

Change in the Cautious-Controlling Organization is usually viewed with suspicion and defensiveness with a strong emphasis on
preserving the status quo; there is minimal creativity and innovation because to do “something different” is to “buck the system;”
communications is top-down with an emphasis on “selling the message” and spin-doctoring rather than engaging in a dialogue that
could mean challenging old assumptions; and there is little opportunity for feedback and collaboration. Conflict is seen as a negative
force that must and can be “managed” away.

Leadership in the Cautious-Controlling Organization is usually the command and control variety, also known as transactional
leadership. Employees are expected to do what they’re told, ask few questions, and be grateful for having a job. In applying the 6-
System Network we find that there is a great deal of accountability demanded but employees and subordinates have little independent
responsibility and minimal authority to make things happen. Besides communications being top-down with little perceived need for
feedback there are very weak ties – or connectivity – to groups and individuals impacted by the behaviour of the organization. Finally,
cooperation in this type of organizational personality only occurs when the organization sees a direct benefit to itself.

Type 4: Suspicious-Defensive Organizational Personality

Low to moderate emotion factor and knowledge factor scores reflects an organization that is highly resistant to change and threatened
by opposing viewpoints. This is a classic mechanical model of organization and transactional leadership. There is little innovation or
creativity with strong protection of long-standing hereditary and developmental factors embedded in the status quo regardless of the
fact that what has worked before is no longer useful in a changed environment. The Suspicious-Defensive Organization is deeply
affected by sick system syndrome.

Communications in the Suspicious-Defensive Organization is directive-based, often coercive, with no effort at relationship building or
collaboration. Conflict or contrary views are seen as a threat that must be repelled, subdued, and punished. The workplace
environment usually has high levels of stress and poor morale with accompanying low levels of performance and commitment.
Leadership is a classic military command and control, transactional model where rank, reporting lines, and hierarchy rules the day.

In the Suspicious-Defensive Organization the 6-System Network is badly twisted. While there are high expectations of performance,
accountability for actions is often unclear and frequently re-directed through finger pointing. There is no independent responsibility
where creativity and innovation can be exercised. And authority is entirely vested with the most senior management that operates on a
“need to know” basis. Besides communications being rare and mostly involved with dictates and orders, the organization maintains
little positive connection to those it affects through its actions and views cooperation as capitulation.

Identifying an organization’s personality

The Organization Energy Index measures what’s deep under the surface of “good news” public relations and the happy-talk found in
many processes of change management. What you will often find is that the scores achieved in the Organization Energy Index reveal
how strongly personnel are linked, both consciously and unconsciously, to very important and positive hereditary and developmental
factors as well as organizational emotion and knowledge factors – factors that are critical to any change process.

This is why the task of changing organizational culture is incredibly difficult – far more than that envisioned by some practitioners who
suggest that changes to an organization’s strategy, structure, or human processes – what are really its climate – will somehow
magically and automatically result in a change to organizational culture.

While some successes may occur in the short term, the reality is that a true understanding of what’s behind organizational hereditary
and developmental factors and an appreciation of the importance of both emotion and knowledge factors must occur before any
possible lasting improvements can be made to the structure and ongoing actions of an organization.

However, as we seek to understand the organization’s personality we invariably also hold the mirror up to our own personality and
nature of being. The reason for this is that our judgment of others’ performance is often based on the level of our own expectations
which in turn are often a reflection of our personal hereditary and developmental factors and our own unique attention to both emotion
and knowledge needs.

But looking within, honestly looking within, is tricky business.

It is very difficult to see ourselves for who we are because much of our behaviour externally is not consciously available to us. We
rarely see ourselves exactly as others see us, and how others’ see us is based on their own unique individual lens of the world that
has been formed through their own unique hereditary and developmental influences. Depending on who we are and especially who
we think we are, the notion of seeing something different can be a very scary concept. It means exposing ourselves to truths that may
be gauzed over by multiple layers of protective coating, applied thin coat by thin coat over success years like layers of fine rice paper
that after many decades have become too rigid and too thick to be penetrated by the cold rain of reality.

The 4 organizational personality types