Organizational Dnago To The Organizational Dna Websit 782477
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.
---
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
Understanding organizational culture and personality is essential to managing change effectively within any organization. The Organizational DNA (Org DNA) profiler provides valuable insights into an organization’s inherent traits, including its decision-making processes, communication style, conflict resolution, and overall work environment. This paper explores the profile of a chosen organization based on the Org DNA profiler, analyzing how this profile impacts change management strategies. The organization selected for this analysis is a medium-sized technology firm, which, after completing the Org DNA survey, was identified as a passive-aggressive organizational type, characterized by consensus-building but poor implementation of decisions.
Organizational Profile Based on Org DNA
The organization in question exhibits typical characteristics of a passive-aggressive culture. It is congenial and conflict-avoidant, fostering harmony but lacking the assertiveness needed to drive major changes. While consensus is achievable at meetings, the implementation of decisions often stalls due to entrenched resistance and lack of accountability. This culture tends to promote mediocrity, avoid risks, and is plagued by murky decision-making authority and a herd mentality that stifles innovation (Laloux, 2014). Communication tends to be indirect, and there exists a sense of complacency, with employees and leaders alike assuming that resistance is inevitable or that "nothing will change anyway." Such traits are often found in mature organizations that have secured their market positions but are now struggling with agility and responsiveness to new market demands.
The profile's emphasis on consensus over action results in an organization that appears collaborative but is internally conflicted. There is a disconnect between strategic intent from leadership and the operational realities faced by employees in the field (Huy, 2002). The isolation of information and decision-making delays further exacerbate this disconnect, leading to missed opportunities and stagnant growth. This profile reflects many Fortune 500 companies that have become "fiddling while Rome burns," as their inertia renders them vulnerable to disruptive competitors.
Impact of Organizational Profile on Change Management
The passive-aggressive profile significantly impacts the organization's approach to change management. Traditional models such as Lewin's Change Model or Kotter's 8-Step Process often assume a level of openness and trust necessary for change initiatives to succeed (Kotter, 1998). However, in a passive-aggressive culture, such assumptions may not hold, requiring tailored strategies that address underlying resistance and communication barriers.
First, the organization’s consensus-driven nature necessitates strong leadership commitment and clear, consistent messaging to align all levels of staff. Leaders must be adept at navigating indirect communication styles, fostering open dialogue that masks resistance and encourages genuine participation (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). Second, because decision-making authority is often murky and second-guessed, change initiatives should include clear accountability mechanisms and transparency in decision processes to build trust and ownership.
Third, resistance within the organization, especially from entrenched underground factions, must be addressed through targeted engagement and involvement strategies. Engaging employees early in the change process, acknowledging their concerns, and creating quick wins can help reduce resistance and foster a sense of agency (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Fourth, the organization’s tendency toward mediocrity and complacency requires change agents to employ motivators that appeal to both individual and collective values, emphasizing the strategic importance of change and potential benefits (Carnall, 2007).
Finally, leveraging the organization’s existing strengths such as consensus-building capabilities and collaborative effort can facilitate change when framed within a strategic vision that resonates throughout the organization (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). For example, a balanced scorecard approach may help align operational activities with strategic goals, creating clearer pathways for implementing change initiatives.
Conclusion
The passive-aggressive organizational profile presents unique challenges for change management, including entrenched resistance, murky authority, and a focus on mediocrity. Recognizing these traits allows leaders to devise tailored strategies that promote transparency, engagement, and accountability. By leveraging the organization’s strengths—such as consensus-building—while addressing its weaknesses, change initiatives can be more effectively implemented. Strategically applying models like the balanced scorecard or Kotter’s steps within this cultural context can mitigate resistance and foster a more adaptive, high-performing organization. Understanding the underlying DNA of an organization, as revealed through tools like the Org DNA profiler, is a crucial first step towards sustainable change and corporate resilience.
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903216411
Carnall, C. A. (2007). Managing Change in Organizations (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational change with resistance and energy. Academy of Management Review, 27(0), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6583954
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Nelson Parker.
Boa.