Mary Bargsley

COMM 2170- Organizational Communication

Philosophies of Management Paper
October 27, 2015
The Information Management Services Department of Salt Lake City, is a
department that provides all IT and communication related services for the
Salt Lake City government offices. The Department consists of some 75
employees and is currently organized into eight different team groups, each
reporting to a different manager. The team groups are: Network,
Infrastructure and Security, End User Device Support, Software Engineering,
Software Support, Web, SLCTV, Finance and Administration. The team
groups vary in size and there is little to know cross functional teams. William
Haight is the CIO of the City of Salt Lake, and is the department director for
Information Management services. This paper analyzes the management
philosophy of William Haight and the rest of the management team at I.M.S
and recommend steps for improving the companys internal communication.
Literature Review
Information Management Services, under the direction of William Haight, has
adopted the culture as a commodity management philosophy for many
years. The culture as a commodity philosophy is one that relies on outside
consultants to give recommendations and advice on the right way to
manage employees (Clark, 2007). These consultants often will use other
companies philosophies and management strategies as examples of how to
be successful.
Culture as a commodity is a relatively new organizational theory and was
first made popular in the 1980s (Andrews and Hershel, 1996). The theory
began when corporate consultants began analyzing successful companies
and then suggesting that the same processes and philosophies used by
those companies could be applied to organizations that had internal
struggles. Culture as a commodity seeks to change or fix an organizations
culture by applying different ideals to it, instead of trying to understand and
work within the already existing culture (Clark, 2007)
Books such as In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman, and
Corporate Cultures by Deal and Kennedy began the push for prescriptive
answers in trying to be a successful manger and organization (Andrews and
Hershel, 1996). These books also allowed organizations to bypass the
absolute need for consultants and instead change their organization culture
in a self-help manner. In Search of Excellence identified deemed certain
values to be key characteristics of successful or excellent organizations;
while, Corporate Cultures identified culture types and how their values rites

and rituals allowed for success (Andrews and Hershel, 1996). A quick search
on either book reveals that both books offer specific guidelines on diagnosing
your own culture and how to use that information to change your culture for
the better.
Although these books, and others like them, are extremely popular; the
academic community has never been able to endorse them because the
results promised rarely happen (Clark, 2007). However, the idea that the
culture of a successful organization can be bottled and sold is still alive and
well. Companies such as Zappos and Valve publishing their corporate culture
philosophies (Jent, 2012) However, even when consultants are brought into
an organization to help facilitate and communicate what the new cultural
expectations are to be, there is not always the resounding success when
they are applied.
Communication Analysis of Information Management Services
Culture as a commodity is seen throughout the management structure and
communication process of IMS. This is a difficult communication structure to
identify with an agency because the philosophy of the current consultant, or
book is often based on different organizational communication theory.
However, I believe that IMS truly does subscribe to the culture as a
commodity school because the communication structures change as
consultants are brought in or a new book is found, usually every 2 years.
Also the communication style of these culture changes are based solely on
managements opinion and is always communicated in a top down approach.
When the communication structures change it is because management,
usually the CIO, has decided that a change in culture is needed to re-brand
the department, never is the actual culture of IMS taken into consideration.
Most all communication is in a very linear model, as the culture as
commodity demands it to be (Andrews and Hershel, 1997) The different
managers of the different teams each tell their subordinates what the culture
of that team should be, if they disagree with the current culture of the CIO or
if the organization is between consultants at the time. The upper
management of IMS, mainly the CIO, then tells the entire organization what
he feels the culture should be based on recommendations from the current
consultant. Feedback about these decisions is highly discouraged and never
taken into consideration and employees are simply supposed to absorb the
information that is presented to them, usually through a power point
presentation from the consultants or they are expected to read the book that
goes along with it. As an employee, I have been told several times over the
last 6 years to read a certain book, such as Lean IT and Leaders Eat Last:
Why some teams pull together and others dont, in order to understand why
my manager has the expectations they do. The idea that employees can buy
this particular book, read it, and then start responding in the desired way is

the basic element of the culture as a commodity school of thought (Clark,

2007)
IMS has just went through another culture shift and this one is based on the
management and communication style as prescribed in the books The 85%
solution and Way to Grow by consultant Linda Galindo. In the 85% solution

communication and management are centered round personal accountability and

self-empowerment of employees (Galindo, 2009). Each employee is told they must
be 85% accountable for the results and outcomes of the department and must
empower themselves with authority to ensure that all projects are successful and
own their own failures in any project that is not successful. In order to facilitate this
structure the hierarchy of IMS was changed into its current incarnation of specific
function driven teams. There was also a new position added to the department, of
project manager. All team managers, except for finance, directly report to the
project manager who in turn directly reports to the CIO. This was seen as a way to
make information on the status of projects flow more smoothly to the CIO, because
the project manager would take all of the feedback from the different managers and
organize it into a concise summary for the CIO. This of course falls into line with the
linear model as there is no feedback given to the mangers from the CIO that has not
been funneled through the project manager and it is never given in a real time
conversation. Horizontal communication is discouraged between teams, unless
they are willing to be accountable for any problems that arise from not following the
prescribed procedure of flowing everything through the project manager. For
example, when a new software rollout was happening the network team was
concerned with the security implications of the software updates. The manager of
the team reported to the project manager that they could not proceed with the
rollout until the issue was addressed with the software support team. The CIO was
advised of this status and it was determined that a meeting between the two teams
was needed and the project manager arranged the meeting. This process took 2
days. If open horizontal communication was more readily encouraged between the
two groups without the fear of being in trouble, this process could have taken a few
minutes to arrange the meeting.
The employees of IMS were told that the values of complete accountability and
personal empowerment were to be their new mantras in their everyday life
(Galindo, 2009). Employees were told that if there is a barrier to seeing the
complete success to a project it was up to them to empower themselves and create
the authority to remove the barrier. Although this sounds like a great value to instill
on your employees, the reality of the situation is that IMS is one department within
a larger city government and as such they are governed by many other factors than
just those within the department. When a project lacked funding for equipment that
was critical for the completion of the project, an employee ignored the budget
restriction and ordered the equipment anyway. They saw this as taking authority to
remove the barrier. However, the equipment had to be sent back due to the lack of
funding in the annual budget and the project was put on hold until next year. This
employee followed the new mantra and guidelines he was given and yet the project
still considered a failure and the entire department was scolded by the CIO for
letting the project fail. The quick fix solution that was prescribed the 85%
solution did not work within the confines of the greater culture of Salt Lake City and

because of this employees quickly became disheartened and saw all of the changes
they were supposed to embrace as pointless.

Also with this new organizational style mangers were told to evaluate their
employees and place them into one of three categories; weed, daisy, or
orchid (Galindo, 2004). The three categories were meant to represent how
successful each employee were and give a guideline to each manager on
how much effort and time a manager should devote to coaching each
employee (Galindo, 2004). Much like the four basic types of organizations in
Corporate Cultures by Deal and Kennedy, these labels are extremely narrow
and try to fit all employees into one category when sometimes it is not that
simple. Communication and discipline of employees were to be based on the
different recommendations from the book Way to Grow. This meant that if you
were labeled a weed, a high functioning independent employee, you were to be
given less time to communicate any concerns with your manager, then if you were
labeled a daisy, a 70% effective employee. Also, if you were labeled an Orchid, a
demanding employee, you were to be monitored closely and a decision would need
to be made if you could grow and change or if you should be let go. The idea of
these labels seriously affected morale and employees began to fear having to talk
with their managers.

As of today, IMS is in a current no mans land of communication and structure. The

culture and management methods prescribed by the consultant have almost
completely failed to be lastingly integrated into the employees thinking. Although
most teams still follow the rigid reporting of status out of fear of repercussions,
most managers have completely disregarded the advice given in Way to Grow as a
way to interact with their employees and have instead formed their own unique
culture and methods. As Foundations of Organizational Theory suggest the one size
fits all approach of defining and changing culture based on the recommendations of
a consultant did not work with the Information Management Services department.
(Andrews and Hershel, 1997).
Recommendations
IMS has a very diverse and unique work force and that should be taken into
consideration when trying to determine what would be best for the organization as
a whole. Also, because the department is part of a much larger organization, a one
size fits all fix should not considered. Instead, IMS should look at what management
principles have worked and created better communication and what has led to
employee dissatisfaction. IMS needs to understand the culture that is always
present within the organization and not try to change and fix that with a quick fix
approach.
First, the organization of the specialized function driven teams have proven to help
with organization and flow of projects. However, horizontal communication between
the different teams, or subunits, should be encouraged and fostered. This
communication can help expedite the exchange of information and allow for quicker
turn around when glitches arise. By not encouraging competition, or being the one
person that can make the project a success, and instead encouraging cooperation

the horizontal communication model between teams could be successful. (Andrews

and Herschel, 2007 p 147).
Second, IMS should look at a communication style that actively encourages
employees to give their thoughts and suggestions on projects and topics.
Embracing Theory Y, for example, would encourage employees to empower
themselves by being part of the conversation and by being part of the decision
making process, instead of being told to create the authority they need to be
empowered. IMS should recognize that most, if not all of their employees want to
work and are completely capable of being driven and self-directed. (Andrews and
Herschel, 2007 p 67-68, 71)
Finally, IMS obviously sees the need for a change, but should rely less on
consultants that do not understand the people who work there and more on the
employees that make up the organization.
Works Cited
Andrews, & Herschel, Organizational Communication: Empowerment in a
technological society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (1996).
Clark, C. Audio taped lectures for organizational communication. (2007)
Galindo, L. (2004). Way to Grown. Dallas: Walk the Talk .
Galindo, L. (2009). The 85% solution. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass.
Jent, M. (2012, Septmeber 28). Corpaorate Culture as Commodity. Retrieved from
The History Facotry: www.historyfactory.com