Merging the E-Strategy and the Evidence and Evaluation directorates

What are the cultures like?

Steve Davies

February 2007
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................... 2
1. Short summary .................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ........................................................................................ 4
3 The questionnaire .............................................................................. 5
4 Findings ............................................................................................. 8
4.1 Dimensions of culture..................................................................... 8
4.2 Becta‟s aspirations ....................................................................... 11
5 And so what? ................................................................................... 13
6 Issues .............................................................................................. 14
7 Further reading (for those that want it) ............................................ 14
E-Strategy and Evidence and Evaluation Directorate Culture

1. Short summary

What are we like?

Merging the two directorates brings three cultures together. E-Strategy has a strong culture
based on clear direction and planning. There is a “core” E&E culture that is a more sceptical
version of the E-Strategy culture. There is a “maverick” E&E culture that is more change-
oriented than the other two.

Both directorates regarded themselves as people-oriented and supportive. Both sets of

managers regard their directorate as similarly people-oriented. However E-Srategy people
tend to see their directorate as more people-oriented than their managers and E&E people
see their directorate as less people-oriented.

The E-Strategy directorate and two thirds of E&E are more results oriented than change
oriented. Around one third of E&E are mavericks who are more change oriented than results
oriented. These mavericks also tend to be located at the more outer edges of the
directorate‟s working culture, scoring lower than most in terms of work formalisation or people
orientation.

Of the 9 issues that define Becta‟s aspiration for its culture, Team working, Accountability,
Innovation and Inclusion (as defined by me) seem to be reasonable strengths for us. We are
weakest in the areas of Transparency, Consistency and Success, and are not particularly
strong in the areas of Respect and Learning.

Issues

There is some scope for misunderstanding between the three cultures, so we will need to
respect each others‟ approaches.
.
The question remains as to whether Becta needs mavericks. Either way, we need to give
some thought as to how this issue is handled.
2. Introduction

Why am I doing this?

I opened my big mouth again. I felt that I for one learned something about E&E when I ran
this over a year ago. So I thought it would be worth running again to help in bringing the two
directorates together.

What is culture?

The Becta definition says that “culture is universally defined as the way things get done in an
organisation. Becta‟s organisational culture is formed by the people in Becta, the environment
1
we operate in, and the work that we do. ” This definition draws on a range of work in the area
of organisational behaviour, placing the roots of an organisation‟s culture in the values and
beliefs we bring into the organisation, and the day-to-day negotiations of doing the job.
2
International studies carried out by Hofstede indicate that organisations import far more
culture from their immediate environment than they create for themselves.

Culture is conceived as consisting of various layers, the deeper layers proving increasingly
recalcitrant to change. At the “surface” are physical artefacts. This would include the state
and location of buildings; the furniture; the computers and other tools we work with; whether
we have open-plan or individual spaces; the clothes we wear to work; etc etc.

Near the surface are the behaviours that are normal or accepted, followed by the values that
underlie those behaviours. Deepest of all are the basic assumptions that are taken for
granted by us all.

For the purposes of this survey I have concentrated on the middle layers. That is our
perceptions of behaviours and the values behind them.

Why change culture?

Business consultants will tell you that you need a culture that is aligned to your organisations
mission. They will add that the culture will need to be adaptable in order that the organisation
can change its focus in response to a changing environment.

What’s the problem?

We are bringing two groups of people together. It will help if we understand where we are
similar and where we differ. We may also wish to consider how capable our culture is to face
the challenges ahead.
 3 The questionnaire
3
I developed a questionnaire based on work done by Delobbe et al (2002) who identified
common dimensions used by various organisation culture questionnaires. These dimensions
are:

People orientation
This includes measures of perceived support, cooperation, mutual respect and consideration
between members of the group.

Control (Work formalisation)

This focuses on the level of work formalisation, the existence of rules and procedures and the
importance of hierarchy. It can be taken as a measure of how bureaucratic we are. I have
used the term “work formalisation” as it seems clearer.

Innovation (Change orientation)

This includes indicators of a general openness to change and propensity to experiment and
take risks. To avoid confusion with the innovation “issue” in the Becta list, I have used the
term “change orientation”.

Results/outcome orientation
This is a measure related to the performance expected of people within the organisation. I
didn‟t think it was appropriate in a questionnaire asking for perceptions to include any hard
measures of performance. It therefore includes measures of the extent to which we know
what is expected of us and are aware of the end results of our work.

The questionnaire contained 27 statements scored against the extent to which respondents
agreed or disagreed with them. Six statements were used to measure each of the four
dimensions, and a further three were aimed at judging the general atmosphere in the
directorate.

I have used people orientation and work formalisation as the dimensions of the matrix shown
in Chart 1. These dimensions are concerned with the day-to-day working of teams, so I have
called this our “working culture”.
“Working culture” characteristics
Chart 1 Working culture

Clear

Bureaucratic Paternalistic

Roles

Individualistic Collegiate

Unclear
Low Group support High
Individualistic cultures
If people‟s roles are unclear, and the levels of group support are low, then the culture is
individualistic. You are on your own to carve out a niche for yourself with no support from
those around you. This might characterise a sales environment where people are in
 competition with each other for sales, or one of the more unpleasant consultancies where you
are under pressure to go “up or out”.

Bureaucratic cultures
Clear roles but low support characterises the classic bureaucracy, or the Fordist
manufacturer. You are a cog in the organisational machine. You may know a lot about your
particular task, but possibly very little about the rest of the organisation.

Paternalistic cultures
I have characterised a working environment with clear roles and a high degree of support as
paternalistic. This is like the traditional extended family. There is a high degree of support
between family members, but they will have distinct roles based upon who they are: father,
mother, grandmother, uncle etc. This kind of environment can often thrive in family-owned
businesses, but also in other organisations too, often forming around a strong “father figure”.

Collegiate cultures
Finally, situations where people‟s roles are unclear, but there is high mutual support, I have
called collegiate. This is the ideal of the university. People are engaged in the general
business of “developing knowledge”, but each in their own separate direction.

The matrix shown in Chart 2 below is based upon the dimensions of change orientation and
results orientation. It shows the relationship between preferred rate of change and comfort
with different degrees of clarity of purpose. The four boxes caricature approaches defined by
“Strategic stance” characteristics
these preferences.

Chart 2 Strategic stance

Clear

Reading the map Following the star

Purpose

Ploughing the furrow Battling the elements

Unclear
Infrequent Change Frequent
Ploughing the furrow
This approach focuses on the day-to-day tasks. You plough the field, you plant the seed, you
water the land, you harvest the seed. And so on. Change is seen as arbitrary and
catastrophic, like a plague of locusts or a tsunami. If you survive, you fashion a new plough
and return to the task.

Reading the map

This approach presumes a stable environment. Change is part of the realm of “known
unknowns”. Like “darkest Africa” on old maps. You know the size of it and where it is, but
you can only guess as to what‟s in it. You use your map to avoid these places.

Following the star

This approach involves focusing on the final destination while sailing through the sea of
change. You have a clear goal and change is a series of distractions that can push you off
course. You rely on your navigational instruments to see you through.
Battling the elements
This approach assumes that the world is in constant turmoil. The seas are never steady
enough to take a proper bearing. Your original destination may be destroyed by the storm or
by an earthquake. You have to man the pumps while negotiating heavy seas. You rely on all
your skills and nerve to get to somewhere profitable.

Atmosphere
This element included measures of the extent to which we regarded those around us as
“happy”, and whether we felt we would intervene if we were aware of bullying. These
measures were included as a check as to whether perceptions of our general environment
might colour the findings as a whole. Also a widespread unwillingness to tackle bullying may
be a reasonable indicator that bullying is present. I also included a question as to whether we
felt under “constant pressure” in our work. This measure cuts both ways, in that without
pressure, little work would get done, but on the other hand, if it is combined with “bad” scores
against the other two measures, can indicate a pretty unpleasant working environment.

The questions were also devised to give some measures against the nine Becta “issues”, and
also to elicit perceptions of ourselves, our team and Becta as an entity. The questionnaire
also contained space for free-text responses to the statements, “I think my team are „typically
Becta‟ when we do this”, and “I think my team are not „typically Becta‟ when we do this”.

The questionnaire did not ask for any information regarding job grade or anything else that
may allow individuals to be identified. However, most respondents were open in returning
their questionnaires to me. I have used this “inside information” to flag the relative positions
of the Senior Manager cohorts within the data.
4 Findings

Twenty-three people from E&E completed the questionnaire out of around twenty-seven who
were eligible and available during the two weeks at the start of January 2007. Nine added
comments in the free-text boxes.

Nine people from E-Strategy completed the questionnaire out of twelve who were eligible.
Four added comments in the free-text boxes

4.1 Dimensions of culture

Atmosphere
The E-Strategy team regarded the atmosphere of their team as wholly positive. Six described
their immediate team as a happy band, and eight felt they would intervene in a case of
bullying. No-one in the E-Strategy team disagreed with these statements. Three people said
they were under constant pressure to perform, but four felt they were not.

The atmosphere in E&E was largely positive. Thirteen regarded their immediate team as a
happy band, and 16 felt they would intervene in a case of bullying. Four people felt that their
team were not happy and three felt reluctant to intervene in a case of bullying. One person
agreed with both these statements. Seven felt they were under constant pressure, whereas
four felt that they were not. This is similar to the situation I found in November 2005.

Working culture
Chart 3 shows the relationship between our responses in relation to people orientation and
work formalisation. This is our working culture – what it is like to be here each day. Each
diamond represents at least one member of the two directorates, and those that are circled
represent people who were senior managers at the time of the study.

Chart 3
Directorate “working culture”
Working culture

Evidence and Evaluation E-Strategy

10 10
Work formalisation

Work formalisation

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
People orientation People orientation

In both directorates our responses were clustered quite closely together, indicating a
reasonably high degree of agreement as to the working culture of the directorate. Relatively
widely shared views are characteristic of small, localised operations. Both directorates could
be characterised as “on the paternalistic side of collegiate”. The E-Strategy directorate, being
smaller, was somewhat more tightly clustered than E&E. E&E in fact became less tightly
clustered than in November 2005, spreading out in both directions on the work formalisation
dimension. There is the potential for conflict and misunderstanding here, with people at each
end of the work formalisation spread having a quite different understanding of how we work.
Senior managers in both directorates regarded their directorate as similarly people oriented.
However, most people in E-Strategy saw their directorate as more supportive than their
managers and most people in E&E saw their directorate as less supportive than their
managers. The highly supportive nature of E-Strategy was reflected in several of the free-text
comments. They differ from Becta because they “work as a tight and supportive team” (S2)
who “get together outside work hours.”(S6) Also they have “excellent communication and
[share] information and [put] new ideas into practice.”(S9)

The level of mutual support within E&E was exemplified by the following comment. “My team
is closely knit in some ways, and has a good support ethic. That is, if someone is under
pressure to deliver many elements of work simultaneously, we always pitch in – taking a
portion of work that is manageable for us alongside our other responsibilities. This is a
mature approach, it happens at all levels and it s to e encouraged.” (E19)

There can be downsides to having such close supportive relationships. We can “skirt around
issues instead of confronting them” and “allow people to „hide away‟ in a team for years
without actually making a difference.” (E6) There is also a danger of becoming an in-group
which would “blame another directorate” (E6) or “sometimes stereotype teams or individuals
as underperforming.” (E15) These respondents felt we were like Becta when behaving like
this. Similarly, another felt that it was “typically Becta” to “complain about the Becta way of
doing things.” (E3)

Strategic stance
Chart 4 shows the relationship between the two more “strategic” dimensions, change
orientation and results orientation. This pictures our attitudes to the direction that Becta and
our work takes.

Strategic “strategic
Chart 4 Directorate stance stance”

Evidence and Evaluation E-Strategy

10 10
Results orientation
Results orientation

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
Change orientation Change orientation

E-Strategy were again clustered quite closely together, again with the senior manager group
distinctly to one side of the other staff. E-strategy staff were quite solidly “following the star”,
with the managers straddling the boundary with “reading the map”. This indicates a strongly
direction-focused and planning-driven environment. One person in E-Strategy felt they were
“typically Becta” when they were “reactive, not planned.” (S2)

In November 2005, E&E‟s pattern was clustered around the middle, indicating that they were
quite equivocal about these issues. There seemed to be a reasonably strong diagonal
relationship (Spearman‟s rho = 0.429) between the two dimensions from both low to both
high. At the time, I felt that a common-sense interpretation might be that if we know where we
are going, we are more likely to want to go there.
In January 2007 E&E had moved towards higher results orientation and change orientation.
However Chart 4 shows a distinct split. Around two-thirds of E&E staff occupied a position
similar to the E-strategy directorate. However, they adopted a more cautious position, closer
to the centre of the chart. Three of the E&E senior managers were closely clustered in the
middle of the other staff. Planning was again key to this group. One respondent felt their
team was not typical of Becta when they, “plan well ahead and stick to the plan! This does
happen in our team quite regularly but has been known to be „scuppered‟ by sudden
decisions from higher up in the organisation.” (E16)

Most of the rest of E&E were clustered along the change orientation axis, indicating that they
were more change-oriented than results-oriented. The two who were senior managers in this
cluster were among the most change oriented. This maverick group were on the edge of
“following the star” and “battling the elements”. Mavericks also acknowledged the unplanned
nature of some of our work, seeing it as typical to “drop what we are doing to respond to an
urgent request for help.” (E3) However, they were less likely to call for more planning, rather
the call was to “make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions.” (E6)

The mavericks also occupy the edges of E&E‟s working culture. Within E&E, four of the five
people with lowest scores for work formalisation and the two with lowest scores for people
orientation were mavericks. This may indicate that they do indeed see our culture differently
from the core E&E group.

These two distinct E&E cultures may be aspects of the scepticism that comes with evidence
gathering. The “core” E&E culture may be sceptical as to means. They ask, “How can we be
sure this is the right road to reach our goal?” and “if we have travelled this far, is it fair to say
we are nearly there?” The “maverick” group may be sceptical as to ends. They ask, “Do we
really want to go there?” and “Why don‟t we look over here?”
4.2 Becta’s aspirations

In November 2005 I also “cut” the data to give measures for Becta‟s aspirations for its culture.
Becta had published nine words to characterise this aspiration, so my challenge was to find
useful proxies for each. I used two statements as a gauge of each word, except Success
where I used 3 to capture different levels of success, and Respect where I used 4 due to the
cross-cutting nature of this issue.

Accountability
I took this to be about the delegation of work and the acceptance of responsibility for it. So I
used the following statements from the work formalisation dimension:
My manager delegates work to me and lets me get on with it. (positive)
I am prepared to take the flak if things go wrong. (positive)

Consistency
I assumed this is about how we feel we are treated by the organisation. It is part of the
people orientation dimension and addressed by the following statements:
Some people always get the best jobs to do. (negative)
People matter to Becta. (positive)

Inclusion
This is also part of the people orientation dimension. I think it is about what we do that shows
we are included as part of a team, and what we do to include others. I measured it with these
two statements:
I regularly contribute to team decisions. (positive)
I regularly share information with colleagues. (positive)

Innovation
This I‟ve taken to be about taking risks and expecting things to change in the future. It is
clearly part of change orientation, so I used the following statements:
If I think something is right I will take the risk and do it. (positive)
I expect my job to be quite different in two years time. (positive)

Learning
I found this a difficult category to distinguish from Innovation. I took it to be about seeking out
new things and being open to change in the present. Again it is part of change orientation,
and I measured it with these statements:
At work I‟m always on the look out for new things to do. (positive)
I‟ve had enough change lately to last me for ages. (negative)

Respect
I felt this was a cross-cutting issue with resonance across the 4 dimensions of culture. I felt it
was about being valued, feeling you have influence and being given space to do your job.
Therefore I used the 4 statements below:
Becta lets me know when I have done a good job. (positive)
I have little influence on my day-to-day work. (negative)
My manager values the work that I do. (positive)
My work is often interrupted by unexpected new tasks. (negative)

Success
I reckon this is about knowing what a good piece of work is. There are 3 statements here
because I wanted to include impact at the level of the work itself, but also at the level of the
organisation or beyond. All three statements are part of Results orientation, of course:
I know how my work contributes to Becta‟s success. (positive)
The work I do makes a difference in the world. (positive)
Once a task is completed, I don‟t know what impact it has had. (negative)
Team working
I wanted to emphasise the two-way nature of team working here, both being supported by the
team and contributing to the collective success. So it straddles both people orientation and
results orientation.
My team supports me and helps me get the job done. (positive)
My work contributes to the success of my team. (positive)

Transparency
This last issue I see as being about clarity of what we are trying to do at both individual and
organisation levels. I used statements from work formalisation and results orientation here:
My manager lets me know exactly what I need to do. (positive)
Becta‟s goals are clear and easy to understand. (positive)

As Chart 5 shows, there are 4 issues (Team working, Accountability, Innovation and
Inclusion) we all agree to be relative strengths – the “peaks” in each profile. A score of 50%
would be the equivalent of everyone “agreeing” with both statements if they were positive, or
“disagreeing” if they were negative. We are weakest in the areas of Transparency,
Consistency and Success, and are not particularly strong in the areas of Respect and
Learning. These peaks and troughs were broadly the same as those recorded for E&E in
November 2005.

However, the differences between the 3 cultures identified above are also thrown into relief.
The E-Strategy directorate and the E&E core group exhibit a very similar profile, with E&E
lagging behind on most areas. These two groups are most in agreement on inclusion and
consistency, areas drawn from people orientation.

However, the Maverick group show a somewhat different profile. Compared to the other two
groups, they have very high scores for Innovation and Learning and very low scores for
Consistency, Success and Transparency. The Maverick group most closely agrees with the
E&E core group on Team working and Respect.

Chart 5 Becta’s cultural aspirations

90%
80%
70%
60%
50% E&E Core
40% E-S All
30%
20% E&E
10% Mavericks
0%
re ty

y
n

wo y
g

g
ns on

ns ess
ec

nc
am nc
t io

in
co nin

li
bi

co usi
sp

rk

re
va

te ste

tra cc
ta
ar

pa
cl
no

un

su
le

i
in
in

ac
5 And so what?

The key question in all this is, “does this culture contribute to the new directorate achieving its
goals?”

The initial objectives in the draft document outlining the new directorate‟s role focus on four
types of activity: planning, delivery, monitoring and relationship building. These types of
activity are all goal-focused. The medium-term objectives add “work[ing]…to develop
thinking” to the list. This one is less easily pinned down. Is the working or the thinking
important?

All these types of activity are focused on two things. On the one hand we will develop
strategy and build the political will for it. On the other hand we will oversee the
implementation of strategy.

In terms of work formalisation, first set of activities pull us in the direction of being experts or
consultants, and the second set pull us in the direction of being project managers. Our
results for work formalisation seem to reflect this balance. On the one hand the need to
deliver particular results and on the other the initiative and flexibility needed to be influential in
a changing and sometimes volatile environment. This balance may not always be
comfortable, but it is probably what we have to do.

There is no apparent need in our aims to be strongly people oriented. However, we do work
in the public sector with its general ethos of public service. We have generally foregone high
pay for a sense of contributing to the common good. A more competitive, dog-eat-dog culture
(like a sales team) would be difficult to instil here, even if it was desirable. Also our aim of
influencing and building relationships outside Becta may be enhanced by our ability to build
relationships with each other.

The majority of people in both directorates tend towards results orientation accompanied by a
more equivocal attitude towards change. An interesting comment from one respondent stated
that E&E were typical of Becta when they “embrace change in principle” (E15). This hints that
in practice, they might be less keen. This strong results orientation indicates a strong focus
on the four types of short term objective – planning, delivery, monitoring and relationship
building.

The mavericks, on the other hand, are more strongly change oriented than results oriented.
They may be more inclined to seek out new directions, or to be risk-taking. They not only
expect change, they may also tend to seek it. They may then be usefully deployed in looking
ahead and thinking about future developments.
6 Issues

1. What is the potential for conflict?

Probably nothing really bad. We are all nice, people-oriented people after all. The E-
Strategy people and the E&E core people have a similar broad approach to strategy.
The scope for misunderstanding here could be that the E-Strategy people may regard
E&E people as over-cautious and slow, maybe even foot-dragging. On the other
hand E&E may see E-Strategy as gung-ho and over-zealous. Both these groups may
see the mavericks as too critical and off-message.

2. Does Becta need mavericks?

If we‟ve got a clear goal and we‟re sticking to it, maybe not. These people prefer
change to pursuing a goal. So they could be troublesome to manage. On the other
hand, if our world is uncertain and volatile, then they may be well suited for navigating
our way.

7 Further reading (for those that want it)

1. This chapter gives a useful overview of the main organisation culture literature:
http://www.deprep.org/archive/oversight/OrgCultureList/OttOnCultureContents-1989.pdf

2. The globe-trotting dutchman‟s own web site:

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

3. Getting to the bottom of what the main questionnaires are measuring:

http://www.iag.ucl.ac.be/recherche/Papers/wp53.pdf

4. UNHCR-report sent to me by Moritz:

http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/courseinfo/honours/121493/wigley.pdf