That said, simply clarifying decision rights won’t serve as a cure-all. Decision makers cannot make effective decisions in the absence of accurate and relevant information. And, as the next finding indicates, incomplete or inaccessible information is a hallmark of the unhealthy organization.
Inadequate Information Flows Plague Unhealthy Organizations
Despite decades of advancement and investment in IT, most organizations still have difficulty getting information where it needs to go. The responses to Org DNA ProfilerSM questions on information show a marked disparity between healthy and unhealthy organizations. (See Exhibit 8.)
Exhibit 8: Information Stagnates in Unhealthy Organizations
Source: Org DNA ProfilerSM data collected from www.orgdna.com, blank answers excluded; Booz Allen analysis
A mere 16 percent of those respondents who described their organizations as unhealthy report that information flows freely within their organizations, and only one in five feels that field and line employees have the information they need to understand the bottom-line impact of their day-to-day choices. More than three times as many “healthy” respondents agree with these statements.
Only two in five “unhealthy” respondents agree that line managers have the metrics they need to drive the business, that their organization rarely sends mixed signals to the market, and that important information gets to headquarters quickly. Healthy respondents are twice as likely to answer these questions in the affirmative.
Larger Organizations Are Less Healthy
Although our data are cross-sectional rather than time-series, they suggest that “healthy” growth is hard to achieve. Specifically, examining profile distributions by organization size (measured by revenues) shows that responses from small organizations are more likely than those from larger ones to result in a healthy profile. (See Exhibit 9.) In other words, smaller organizations are generally more effective at executing. By contrast, large organizations are more likely to manifest dysfunctional traits and behaviors and report unhealthy profiles.
Exhibit 9: Organizational Health Declines with Size
Source: Org DNA ProfilerSM data collected from www.orgdna.com, based on 24,025 completed observations; Booz Allen analysis
These results and our experience working with clients of all sizes suggest that organizational DNA changes, or mutates, as organizations grow and adapt to changes in their competitive environment, and that these changes are often for the worse.
Altitude Determines Attitude: Senior Management Is High on Organizational Health
The Org DNA ProfilerSM has generated interest at every level: 23 percent of respondents identify themselves as senior management, 19 percent as middle management, 17 percent as line management, 18 percent as business unit staff, and 17 percent as corporate staff. Our survey results indicate sharp differences, however, in perception between senior management and the rest of the organization. At the same time, the four non-senior-management groups show remarkable consistency in their outlooks.
More than any other group in the organization, senior executives responding to the survey perceive their firms as high-functioning, reporting healthy profiles more than half of the time. (See Exhibit 10.)
Exhibit 10: Senior Management’s Bullish Attitude Sets Them Apart
Source: Org DNA ProfilerSM data collected from www.orgdna.com, based on 24,032 completed observations; Booz Allen analysis
In contrast, line and midlevel managers and business unit and corporate staff tend to be consistently pessimistic in their assessment of organizational effectiveness. Across the board, their responses result in unhealthy profiles 70 percent of the time.
Digging into the question-level data, it becomes clear that not only is senior management out of touch with the rest of the organization, but they don’t know what they don’t know. Nearly two-thirds of senior managers agree that “important information gets to headquarters quickly,” whereas only half of their subordinates agree. The executive floor at many companies would appear to be cut off in more ways than one.
Curing What Ails You: Organizing to Execute
Results from the Org DNA ProfilerSM overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that most companies today suffer the ill-effects of unhealthy organizational design. In other words, they are being thwarted from within. But our research goes beyond discriminating between “healthy” and “unhealthy.” Each individual respondent generates a profile that 85 percent of the time falls into one of seven specific organizational types, each with a distinct personality and set of distinguishing characteristics.
Four of these profiles — Passive-Aggressive, Overmanaged, Outgrown, and Fits-and-Starts — are “unhealthy,” but each is unhealthy in a different way. Each exhibits a specific combination of dysfunctional traits and counterproductive behaviors. The first step in fixing these problems is to identify and isolate them. That is the purpose of the Org DNA ProfilerSM . Using a framework that examines key aspects of an organization’s design, the tool allows management to see what is working and what isn’t, deep inside a highly complex organization. Moreover, it serves as a “search engine,” directing management to practical and actionable information on the remedies most relevant to their particular situation. (For more information on remedies, see RESULTS: Keep What’s Good, Fix What’s Wrong, and Unlock Great Performance, by Gary L. Neilson and Bruce A. Pasternack [Crown Business, 2005].)
The Seven Types of Organizations
Eighty-five percent of all responses to the Org DNA ProfilerSM fall into one of these seven “personality” types, which not only describe an organization’s typical traits but also explain its shortcomings and even predict its behavior.
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton
In Passive-Aggressive organizations, people pay those directives lip service, making only enough effort to appear compliant. Looking more closely at Org DNA ProfilerSM question-level results, however, it is clear that execution is far from their highest priority. In contrast to responses from the healthiest Resilient organizations, people working in Passive-Aggressive organizations feel strongly that they don’t know which decisions they’re responsible for, that no decision is ever final, that good information is hard to obtain, and that their performance is not accurately appraised. (See chart below.)
That said, the Passive-Aggressive organization is not one where bad outcomes can be attributed to individuals’ hostile or perverse intentions. It is, in fact, a place where mostly well-intentioned people are the victims of flawed processes and policies. Passive-Aggressive organizations are the result of entropy and expediency and historical accident, laced with the occasional bout of bad behavior left uncorrected. Ultimately, an organization becomes Passive-Aggressive because that is the path of least resistance: It reflects a decision made by all the individuals in an organization, most of them well intentioned, to not fight what they believe they cannot change.
—Adapted from Neilson et al., “The Passive-Aggressive Organization,” Harvard Business Review, October 2005
Source: Org DNA ProfilerSM data collected from www.orgdna.com, based on 30,000 responses; Booz Allen analysis
How Healthy Is My Company?
We collect and analyze the data, cutting it many ways to yield a multidimensional diagnosis. First, we look at the breakdown of employee responses by profile and compare it to responses from peer organizations (e.g., in the same industry, of similar size, in the same country) and to the global data set. We also examine the answers to specific questions to identify where the breakdowns are occurring in, between, and among the various organizational building blocks — decision rights, information, motivators, and structure — and how, again, that compares to peers and the overall data set. We also frequently analyze the data by department or unit and by management level to tease out these distinctions (i.e., best and worst practices, differences in perspective), as well as other dimensions relevant for a particular client.
Not every employee in a given company will generate the same profile: Each organization is a mosaic of different perspectives. However, there is invariably a strong center of gravity around which responses from a single organization cluster. On average, the most common profile generated at a single company, whether it be Passive-Aggressive, Fits-and-Starts, Military Precision, or another type, will account for close to 40 percent of all responses in that company. The two most common profiles will account for more than 60 percent of responses, on average. (See exhibit below.)
Any Organization Is a Mosaic of Types with a Clear Center of Gravity
This broad consistency of responses holds true down to the question level. On an average 7 of the 19 questions, more than 70 percent of company respondents will choose the same response. We don’t see that high a level of agreement on any question in the public data set.
Of course, the real power of the Org DNA ProfilerSM data is what organizations do with it. Many clients have used it to great benefit to drive results. For instance, an outsourcing company based in India was worried that its organization could not accommodate its torrid growth. Frontline managers were being hired so rapidly, senior management assumed they would quickly burn out and become disgruntled. They administered the Org DNA ProfilerSM to every manager in the company and were stunned to discover that, if anything, junior managers had a brighter outlook than their bosses and felt the company was very healthy, indeed Resilient. In fact, it was the founding team of senior executives who were much less likely to report a healthy profile — the opposite of our general finding that senior management tend to be more optimistic about organizational health.
As part of a full-day, facilitated offsite, the senior team explored this result, among others, and concluded that, as the entrepreneurs who founded the enterprise, their expectations for its performance were exceptionally high; they were less tolerant of perceived shortfalls. The company has since built its entire strategic plan as well as its implementation program around the four DNA building blocks, specifically targeting weaknesses identified in their Org DNA ProfilerSM results.
A second client, a global health-care company, identified a number of organizational obstacles to optimal health using the Org DNA ProfilerSM, including unclear decision rights, a complex and overlayered management structure, and an insufficient emphasis on performance differentiation and accountability. They are now in the process of clarifying key decision rights, simplifying their management structure, and renewing the focus of the performance appraisal process on personal accountability for superior results.
Another client, a not-for-profit global relief agency, used the Org DNA ProfilerSM to sample its staff in every corner of the world on their perceptions of the organization’s efficacy. More than 3,000 responses from all divisions and all levels within the agency revealed sharp distinctions. For example, North American respondents reported fewer healthier behaviors as a rule, and divisions responsible for delivering aid tended to report healthier traits than those focused on fundraising. The agency was able to use these findings immediately to design programs tailored to the different needs of its various regions and divisions. Moreover, it uncovered and is now exploiting opportunities for internal best-practices sharing.
In addition to serving as a useful diagnostic tool, the Org DNA ProfilerSM is a springboard to action. It initiates a dialogue within organizations — among regions, divisions, management levels — that starts with a common understanding and leads to improved results.
The Web site is open to the general public, and visitors can voluntarily complete a profile of their organization. In addition to answering the 19 questions, respondents also provide demographic information (e.g., their organization’s size and industry, their own level and department in the organization). We use these data to categorize responses and identify differences across industries, functions, management levels, and the like. When we create a custom Org DNA ProfilerSM for a client, we tailor the demographic questions to establish the comparison groups that are most relevant to that client’s situation (e.g., what division/location a respondent works in, whether he or she came from an acquired entity, etc.).
On both the public site and the company-specific sites, individual responses are strictly anonymous: No names (company or individual) are requested or revealed. The data collected are used for analysis and comparison purposes only.
Source: Org DNA ProfilerSM data collected from www.orgdna.com, based on 30,000 responses; Booz Allen analysis
DeAnne M. Aguirre (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a senior vice president based in Booz Allen Hamilton’s
Lloyd W. Howell Jr. (email@example.com) is a vice president with Booz Allen Hamilton in
David B. Kletter (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a vice president with Booz Allen Hamilton in
Gary L. Neilson (email@example.com) is a senior vice president with Booz Allen Hamilton in