In this second entry from Macro perspectives of change I want to focus on Roloff’s presentation of Dialectical approaches. In summary the theory asserts that when individuals or groups advocate for change in an organization you will have people for change, and people against change. There will be a diversity of ideas, confrontation, conflict and eventually change. One of these forces for change occurs through hiring, the application process and employee turnover. Roloff illustrates this through the presentation of ASA Theory, an acronym which stands for Attraction, Selection and Attrition. The theory entails that individuals apply for jobs with companies that they consider psychologically to be a cultural fit. The organizations select applicants they consider to be a cultural fit. And, under a variety of circumstances which Roloff outlines, the fit is not always a correct fit. When this occurs, employees undergo an internal process determine if they will stay or quit.
When it comes to assessing the culture of an organization, an applicant has little to go on. They have the job description and public knowledge of a company’s reputation both of which can paint an inaccurate picture of the organization’s actual culture. If they have relationships with current/former employees or service vendors to the organization, they are more likely to accurately gauge their likelihood as a cultural fit. When I applied for my full-time position at Northwestern, I was already a temp, so I had an inside look at the culture of the department. Drawing from Roloff’s types of fit presentation I would characterize my fit as “maverick.” I am independent and loyal to the organization, but I don’t like conventions. Sometimes I feel like I don’t fit, but rather than shy away from my obligations and community I engage in change behavior, promotion, and innovation. I have taken this lecture into great account over the last year as we have evaluated new applicants to the department. While front line employees are not authorized to hire, we are involved in interviewing and evaluating applicants. I have personally recommended against the hire of our last four hires because they presented as, to use Roloff’s term, fakers. They used image creation and protection to embellish answers, omit things from their resume, and mask behaviors. Others in my department are drawn to these personality types and are surprised later when they don’t work out or turn out to be Machiavellian. In our last hire, my goal was to limit or reduce the homogenization effect. This was successful in that we added ethnic and social diversity to the group. But unsuccessful in that they did not influence creativity or innovation. I will be more careful in the future to appraise both team and personal needs when it comes to influencing the selection process.
LO 3: Address complex challenges by collaboratively leading teams across disciplines, distances and sectors.
Comments