EMQ » April–June 2022 » Volume 58 Issue 2
By Wendi Dykes McGehee
In his bestselling book, Start With Why, Simon Sinek suggests that most organizations are clear on what they do, some know how they do it, but very few understand why they do it.[1] He compares the Apple Technology Company (Apple) to another popular technology company. He says that both organizations know what they do (create quality technology products such as personal computers, flat screen monitors, cell phones, and more), and both seem to be confident on how to do that well. However, the distinguishing factor that sets Apple apart is knowledge of why they do what they do (to be first).
Because both companies make similar products and comparable quality, Sinek suggests that the attraction to their brand is not about quality. Instead, it’s about an intrinsic desire that exists in many people to be the first among friends and family to have a new product or device. They want to be seen as innovative or ahead of the crowd. This impression that Apple creates makes individuals wait in line for hours to get the newest iPhone the day it is launched or upgrade a device well before its life cycle has expired.
[memberonly folder=”Members, EMQ2YearFolder, EMQ1YearFolder, EMQLibraryInstitution”]A Christian worldview approaches this differently because God’s economy is inverted. Applying the concept in the example above to a mission organization yields a different problem. Although what is accomplished (the specific ministry focus) may differ, mission organizations generally hold a deep connection and conviction about why they do the work they do (Matthew 28:19). However, they often experience pain around how they do what they do.
Models of Organizational Commitment
From an organizational psychology perspective, the how turns the focus toward the thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors the members (employees) have toward an organization they work for. Members of an organization may be accomplishing the goal and expressing commitment to the goal because of the higher purpose involved. Yet are they working with the organization because they want to, because they need to, or because they feel obligated to? The intrinsic connection, commitment, or lack thereof to an organization is influenced not only by a person’s calling but also by how an organization causes their staff to feel while working with them (e.g., valued, supported, informed, burnt out, unengaged, etc.).
In academic literature, this idea is called organizational commitment. It is the psychological attachment a person has for their organization.[2] Affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment is a three-component model of organizational commitment commonly used to help illustrate the various levels of commitment that a member may feel.[3]
The first type, affective commitment, refers to an emotional attachment or the loyalty one has for an organization. This type of commitment is what organizations strive for as it signals a personal desire to be with the organization. Members who experience affective organizational commitment are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction, elevated work motivation, and increased job performance[4] because they work for an organization because they want to.
The second type of commitment, continuance commitment, is the perceived costs one associates with leaving the organization. Simply put, if the cost risk benefit is too high to leave a ministry, a member may stay because they need to. The third commitment type, normative commitment, references a moral need or obligation to stay with an organization. These individuals stay because they ought to.
Mission leaders can work to set a tone that creates a working culture that inspires affective commitment to their organization. To begin, leaders need to understand the type of organizational culture their members experience in their organization. Similar to a demographic culture, an organizational culture is complex and includes the assumptions, expectations, traditions, and norms that are experienced by those in its space.[5] The organizational culture can involve how work gets done and encompass the feeling staff members have while completing the work.
Organizational Culture Types
Most organizational culture types bring value, and the healthy characteristics of one type do not make it superior to other types. What is significant is how well an organization’s culture aligns with those working in an organization.
In their book, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn offer one tool, called an Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI),[6] to identify and evaluate an organization’s existing culture. The leadership and management of staff play an important role in defining an organization’s culture.[7]
In the OCAI assessment, leadership is identified by the nature of an organization’s measuring preferences for being efficient, innovative, nurturing or results-oriented. In addition, the organization’s dominant cultural characteristics, elements that make up the organizational glue (like preferences for mutual trust, being cutting edge, or having clear policies), the strategic emphasis, and the criteria for success contribute to the explanation.
Furthermore, the assessment considers how effectiveness is viewed by the organization meaning, does the organization value stability, predictability, and mechanistic behaviors or, rather, change, adaptability, and organic decision making. It also considers an organization’s preference toward an external focus that values differentiation and productive rivalry or an internal focus that looks for unity and integration.
When these elements are combined, a primary culture type is presented. Those types are hierarchy, clan, adhocracy, and market. Some organizations have a blend of culture types, but for many, a dominant style is most frequently operationalized. A brief description of each culture type follows which may provide insight into how work is currently accomplished in a mission organization.
Hierarchy
The hierarchy culture is described by its high level of accountability, bureaucracy, and smooth-flowing predictable outputs. Highly formalized in process, these types of organizations value stability, control, and clear lines of decision making. These organizations tend to be well organized. Leaders value an efficiency mindset and keep track of performance.[8]
Clan
A clan culture is named for its highly relational, family-like environment. Semi-autonomous work teams are formed and rewarded accordingly. Leaders are often viewed as mentors and sometimes parent-like figures.[9] Consensus and full participation by all employees in decision-making are key themes in this culture type.[10]
Adhocracy
The adhocracy culture is described as a dynamic, creative, risk-taking environment. Leaders tend to be innovative and encourage employees to experiment with new ideas.[11] They promote development and growth for employees.
Market
Results, productivity, and ambitious goals define the market culture. Hard work and external transactions are often rewarded. The working environment tends to feel competitive, and leaders tend to drive the demanding tone.[12]
With understanding of the culture of your organization comes an opportunity to assess and align. To assess is to create an awareness of how work gets accomplished in your organization. Knowing that leadership style coupled with the process of how the work gets done connects to create a more complete picture of the culture you are setting.
Alignment
Alignment occurs when the personal and environmental characteristics of how the organization operates connects to that of the member.[13] This state is called person-organization fit, also referred to as person-culture fit.[14] A recent study by McKinsey[15] reminds us that employees want to feel a sense of shared identity with their organization and leaders in relation to what they expect from their work.
Alignment is illuminated by positioning your perspectives alongside those who work in your organization. As a leader, it involves asking yourself if the view you hold of the organizational culture is similar to those in your span of care? Find out how they experience the work by fostering honest and open dialogue around this topic.
Together, identify and celebrate areas of congruence and then clearly articulate your motivation and intention behind the areas of misalignment. This open and direct conversation can lead to a renewed and revised sense of purpose for all involved. The experience of alignment is more about deep-rooted understanding than agreement. Members must have a profound understanding of how what they do contributes to the purpose and overall goals of the ministry.
As a leader, acknowledge where change may be needed and provide clarity and cause to how work is accomplished. This transparent and collaborative process can create feelings of loyalty and the emotional attachment needed for strong affective commitment to you and the organization.
Finally, remember that being a light to the world as we accomplish our greater why begins with how the work is completed from the inside out. Let our reflection outside the organization mirror the unity from within.
Wendi Dykes McGehee (wmcgehee@apu.edu)holds a PhD in human and organizational systems. She is an assistant professor and director of the Master of Science in organizational psychology program at Azusa Pacific University. As an organizational effectiveness consultant, McGehee blends her professional HR/organizational development experience alongside her education to help organizations flourish.
[1] Simon Sinek, Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (New York: Penguin Press, 2009).
[2] John P. Meyer and Natalie J. Allen, “A Three-component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review 1, no. 3 (Spring, 1991): 61–89.
[3] Meyer and Allen, “A Three-component Conceptualization,” 61–89. Aaron Cohen, “Commitment Before and After: An Evaluation and Reconceptualization of Organizational Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review 17, no. 6 (September 2007): 336–354.
[4] John P. Meyer, David. J. Stanley, Lynne Herscovitch, and Laryssa Topolnytsky, “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, no. 1 (August 2002): 20–52.
[5] Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn, Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2011).
[6] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[7] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[8] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[9] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[10] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[11] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing.
[12] Cameron and Quinn, Diagnosing. David, Valas, and Raghunathan, “Assessing Organization Culture.” Yu and Wu, “A Review of Study.”
[13] Benjamin Schneider, “The People Make the Place,” Personnel Psychology 40 no. 3 (September 1987): 437–453, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.
[14] Schneider, “The People Make the Place.”
[15] Aaron De Smet, Bonnie Dowling, Marino Mugayar-Baldocchi, and Bill Schaninger, “Great Attrition or Great Attraction? The Choice is Yours,” McKinsey Quarterly, September 8, 2021, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/great-attrition-or-great-attraction-the-choice-is-yours.
EMQ, Volume 58, Issue 2. Copyright © 2022 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
