Organizational Dnago To The Organizational DNA Website

Organizational Dnago To The Organizational Dna Website Wwworgdnacom

Organizational Dnago To The Organizational Dna Website Wwworgdnacom

Organizational Dnago To The Organizational Dna Website Wwworgdnacom

Organizational DNA Go to the Organizational DNA website ( ). Completed survey see results below . Complete the Org DNA Profiler for the organization where you work or for an organization that you have some familiarity. Print your results or make note of the type of organization. In your paper, describe the profile of your organization and how this profile will impact change management within the organization.

Integrate references to support your key points. The paper should be 3 pages, type-written and double spaced. List your sources (articles, Internet sites, textbooks, etc.) at the bottom of the paper, in APA format. Reference list must include at least two sources in addition to the textbooks and cite accordingly Org DNA Profiler® Survey Based on your responses, your organization is a passive-aggressive organizational type . Organizations with strong execution “DNA†tend to share similar characteristics.

By fostering these traits, you can improve your organizational performance. Here are a few key improvement areas customized for you: · Quickly translating key strategic and operational decisions into action · Sending consistent messages to the market · Giving field employees insight into the bottom-line impact of daily choices · Prioritizing capabilities when evaluating opportunities The passive-aggressive organization: “Everyone agrees, but nothing changes†Congenial and seemingly conflict-free, this organization builds consensus easily, but struggles to implement agreed-upon plans. So congenial as to seem conflict-free, this is the seething, smiley-face organization. Building consensus to make major changes is not a problem; implementing these changes, however, is next to impossible.

Entrenched, underground resistance from field operations routinely defeats corporate initiatives. Lacking the authority, information, and incentives needed to undertake meaningful change, line employees tend to ignore mandates from headquarters, assuming “this too shall pass.†Confronted with an apathetic organization, senior management laments the futility of “nailing jell-o to the wall.†Participants in the passive-aggressive organization can rarely count on the commitments made by colleagues. As expected, senior leaders don’t do as they say and fail to deliver consistent messages to the organization. Passive-Aggressive organizations tend to strive for the mean. Mediocrity is not only quietly accepted, it’s often promoted.

Decision-making authority is murky at best, and, once made, decisions are often second-guessed. The herd mentality runs rampant, trampling innovation and ownership, and information is locked down, inaccessible to those who most need it. Ironically, this profile is the most common among the seven we’ve identified and fits many Fortune 500 companies. Having secured a large and defensible market position, they are now fiddling while Rome slowly burns. The coherence index specifically measures the coherence or consistency of your organization's strategy.

Most passive-aggressive organizations earn a low score in this area. Coherent companies have a clear set of capabilities that are in line with their strategy and that they use over and over again in their portfolio. Please visit the coherence profiler to learn more about the strengths of coherence.

Paper For Above instruction

The organizational profile identified by the Organizational DNA survey classifies the organization in question as a passive-aggressive type. This classification is rooted in traits such as consensus-building and congeniality that mask underlying resistance to change and implementation challenges. Understanding this profile is vital for effective change management, particularly within the context of organizations increasingly seeking agility and innovation in competitive markets.

Passive-aggressive organizations are characterized by a seeming agreement among members but with underlying resistance that hampers actual change. This type often appears friendly and conflict-free yet struggles with translating strategic plans into actionable results, thereby impeding organizational growth and improvement. Such organizations tend to have murky decision-making processes where authority is ambiguous, and decisions are often second-guessed, which further diminishes efficiency. Leaders in these environments face significant barriers when attempting to implement change initiatives because entrenched subterranean resistance from field operations often sabotages top-down directives.

This profile significantly impacts change management processes. For instance, the tendency toward consensus and conflict avoidance can delay or dilute initiatives, making it difficult to execute strategic shifts. As noted by Kotter (2012), successful change requires clear leadership, decisive action, and a culture that embraces constructive conflict and debate. In contrast, passive-aggressive organizations avoid confrontation, choosing instead to maintain the status quo, which hampers innovation and adaptability. Furthermore, the low coherence index typical of these organizations signals inconsistency between strategic intent and capabilities, leading to sporadic efforts rather than coherent, sustained change.

To overcome these challenges, change management strategies must be tailored specifically to the passive-aggressive organizational profile. First, leadership must focus on building trust and establishing clear lines of authority and accountability, as recommended by Lewin's (1947) Change Model, which emphasizes unfreezing current behaviors, changing, and refreezing new practices. Leaders should foster open communication channels and create safe environments where employees feel empowered to voice resistance and concerns without fear of reprisal. This approach aligns with transformational leadership practices (Bass & Riggio, 2006), which stimulate organizational commitment and reduce underground resistance.

Second, organizations should invest in capacity-building initiatives that improve decision-making clarity and strategic coherence. As Blanchard and Hersey (1982) suggest, leadership development and clear articulation of roles and expectations can enhance commitment and ownership at all levels. Regular communication of the organization's vision and strategic goals helps align capabilities with objectives and ensures consistency in messaging, which is critical in overcoming apathetic or resistant attitudes. Additionally, implementing feedback mechanisms allows frontline employees to participate meaningfully in change processes, thereby reducing the underground resistance described in the survey.

Third, cultivating a culture of accountability and recognizing incremental progress fosters motivation and enhances strategic coherence. Applying principles from Schein (2010), organizations should work toward establishing shared assumptions and values that support change efforts. Recognizing small wins and celebrating successes reinforce new behaviors and demonstrate tangible benefits of change initiatives, which can break the cycle of ambivalence and stagnation often seen in passive-aggressive organizations.

In conclusion, understanding the passive-aggressive organizational profile provides crucial insights into the complexities and barriers to effective change management. Tailored strategies emphasizing trust, clarity, communication, and recognition are necessary to transform such organizations from resistant to adaptable entities capable of sustained growth. Implementing these approaches, supported by academic frameworks and best practices, can significantly improve the likelihood of successful change initiatives, enabling passive-aggressive organizations to realize their strategic potential.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Blanchard, K. H., & Hersey, P. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice-Hall.
• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.