Comments on: Dilbert Highlights a Classic http://integritydividend.com/leadership/dilbert-highlights-a-classic.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dilbert-highlights-a-classic The Power of Credibility at Work Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:11:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: TonySimons http://integritydividend.com/leadership/dilbert-highlights-a-classic.html/comment-page-1#comment-15 TonySimons Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:29:54 +0000 http://integritydividend.com/?p=833#comment-15 I agree that it is widespread. In my opinion, it is a classic behavioral integrity problem at the organizational level, and perhaps also at executive levels throughout the organization, as employees will tend to hold all their superiors accountable for what appears as organizational hypocrisies. As for sources -- (1) yes, one would be systematic underestimation of the intelligence and information access of subordinates ("they won't notice"). This tendency goes up against Rod Kramer's concept that subordinates are "intuitive auditors" who often make "paranoid attributions" for the inconsistencies they notice. (2) Another, i think, is the use of public statements as statements of aspiration rather than fact... perhaps in the hope that the words will shape the underlying dynamics -- as typified by Sears' declaring their employees are all "associates" regardless of the actual power dynamics and the systems in place. (3) Some, i am sure, emerges from unwitting inconsistencies and/or a sense of powerlessness over actions taken in different parts of the organization and/or a difference in objectives between different parts of the organization. Maybe that one needs to be broken down, but it is clearly difficult to coordinate across large organizations. I am sure there are more sources... Let's figure them out. I agree that it is widespread. In my opinion, it is a classic behavioral integrity problem at the organizational level, and perhaps also at executive levels throughout the organization, as employees will tend to hold all their superiors accountable for what appears as organizational hypocrisies.

As for sources — (1) yes, one would be systematic underestimation of the intelligence and information access of subordinates (“they won’t notice”). This tendency goes up against Rod Kramer’s concept that subordinates are “intuitive auditors” who often make “paranoid attributions” for the inconsistencies they notice. (2) Another, i think, is the use of public statements as statements of aspiration rather than fact… perhaps in the hope that the words will shape the underlying dynamics — as typified by Sears’ declaring their employees are all “associates” regardless of the actual power dynamics and the systems in place. (3) Some, i am sure, emerges from unwitting inconsistencies and/or a sense of powerlessness over actions taken in different parts of the organization and/or a difference in objectives between different parts of the organization. Maybe that one needs to be broken down, but it is clearly difficult to coordinate across large organizations. I am sure there are more sources… Let’s figure them out.

]]> By: DrKnow http://integritydividend.com/leadership/dilbert-highlights-a-classic.html/comment-page-1#comment-14 DrKnow Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:20:33 +0000 http://integritydividend.com/?p=833#comment-14 Ironically, this Dilbert strip represents a primary issue pervasive in organizations – a lack of value congruency. What is stated as an organization’s value system does not always align to the actions taken by an organization’s leaders. I would be interested in hearing from others their perspective on why this appears to be such a pervasive issue. Do leaders really believe that their constituents (followers) are not cognizant of these inconsistencies? This is an issue of credibility that has far reaching implications for weak organizational commitment by employees. Nanette Meyer Doctoral Candidate Ironically, this Dilbert strip represents a primary issue pervasive in organizations – a lack of value congruency. What is stated as an organization’s value system does not always align to the actions taken by an organization’s leaders. I would be interested in hearing from others their perspective on why this appears to be such a pervasive issue. Do leaders really believe that their constituents (followers) are not cognizant of these inconsistencies? This is an issue of credibility that has far reaching implications for weak organizational commitment by employees.

Nanette Meyer
Doctoral Candidate

]]>