Well, in a word, yes!  Many organizations are organizationally and systemically sick and don’t even realize it. Acquiescence to organizational dysfunction oftentimes renders an organization ineffective, inefficient and makes them incapable at achieving any degree of greater success.  When an organization allows a group, or groups, of employees to “throttle down” personal and organizational performance, it is actually accepting and embracing the status quo.  Accepting the status quo places them in a vulnerable state of organizational disarray.  Not very obvious to the untrained eye, are a myriad of signs and symptoms signaling that the organization is operating at a far from optimum performance level.  It is at this point, that management should welcome an independent and objective organizational analysis, organizational behavior assessment and an external performance evaluation on key employees.  Objectivity and formal education in organizational analysis are critical as to make an accurate and unbiased organizational assessment and diagnosis.  This is a complex area of management practice however; there are some key points that will aid in becoming more familiar with the signs and symptoms of a dysfunctional organization. 

Being organizationally dysfunctional does not mean that the organization is doomed, it is simply the subsequent fallout of undesirable behaviors that have been acquiesced to by management thus allowing an unwanted counter-culture to take hold to such a degree that individual and organizational performance metrics begin to suffer.  (Remember – having positive cash flow does not always mean you are organizationally functional.  It can simply mean you are lucky and making cash in spite of yourself.  Imagine what cash flow and profitability can be like when all organizational, cultural and behavioral problems are corrected).

When an organization is dysfunctional, the organization’s human capital (the staff and employees) become less effective at their jobs, less productive, more protective of “current systems”, less enthusiastic, far less likely to seek out areas to target for continuous improvement and become more prone to criticizing any management initiative that has a central thesis of change or improvement.  Fear of change is normal.  Perpetual hatred for, and avoidance of change, can be organizationally catastrophic. 

Many organizationally perceptive new supervisory and management employees become rapidly de-motivated and disillusioned by a wholesale managerial acquiescence to the status quo.  Many owners and managers face a dichotomous organizational dilemma.  They want the organization to perform better and they do not like certain employee’s behaviors however, they avoid confrontation of all kinds and feel there will be ill will, hurt feelings, bad morale and turmoil if the organization’s problems and problem people are brought into the spotlight.  Any organization that has a nucleolus of status quo enthusiasts who are gaining collective organizational seniority are setting a course for additional organizational problems.  Oftentimes executives, managers, or business owners hire potential change agents knowing they will not support their initiatives because it disrupts the status quo and can expose and draw attention to personal relationships within the organization that have a quid pro quo (something for something) between themselves and one or more members from the status quo group.  Hiring a change agent full well knowing that you are not going to subscribe to, support and defend their analysis or support their organizational change recommendations and initiatives is unfortunately commonplace.  Many owners or managers can be heard saying that the “problem” has become bigger than believed, would disrupt the organization too much to address the problems and change out staff and the organization cannot be tamed by common approaches.  Many change agents routinely identify the degree to which day-to-day information is withheld from management and to what degree a group, or groups, of status quo-protective employees not only block any, and all, change, but also suppress productivity and innovation.  Organizational behaviorists consistently report that the status quo group members repel innovation and shun excessive inquiry into their respective areas of control with a high degree of skill, effort and manipulation.

Status quo “protectors” often become fiercely guarded when it comes to vendors, purchasing, the supply chain, control, authority, work assignments and turf in general.  It is not uncommon for a seasoned status quo protector to be productive less than 30% of each day and invest a disproportionate amount of time into communication with other members of the status quo group. 

Management in general, does not fully grasp the complexity and seriousness of the true hindrance a status quo group can apply to an organization because it is applied over long periods of time and mostly out of their view.   A status quo group usually becomes quite skilled at gradually exerting their negative organizational influence.  Management and/or ownership are too busy fighting new fires to even begin to investigate the source of older organizational smoke or fires from blazes they oftentimes refer to as old news or ancient history.  Status quo groups oftentimes reject a migration toward technologies that make information much easier to share and administrative reporting easier to examine anyone’s personal, or group, work product. 

Status quo groups are oftentimes the catalyst for unwanted turnover.  The departure of good employees, motivated potential change agents, or any new employee is often blamed on “not hiring the right people”.  (Just about everyone can name a “good” employee chased out of an organization by status quo “protectors” that they also refer to as “the system”).   Change agents left unsupported can be “attacked” by status quo groups in the same fashion a foreign body is besieged by a healthy immune systems so as to eliminate the perceived threat.  Sub groups of status quo protectors can oftentimes be very skilled at making change agents or new employees feel they are not a fit to the workplace.  A commonly seen by-product of workplaces that are strongly “policed” by status quo groups is the premature departure of a highly skilled employee.  They are “set up for failure” because they have the ability to expose a status quo group’s power. 

Oftentimes, if members of management secretly support the status quo, objectors are “set up” in a constructive discharge theme.  (More about constructive discharge in part two). 
Management, executives and business owners must only enter into an “engaging” of an organizational diagnostician or change agent when a commitment is present which clearly supports an honest assessment of the degree to which an organization is dysfunctional, how long, dysfunctional maneuvers have been commonplace and who the core status quo members are.  Management, executives and business owners should clearly communicate a receptiveness to change as well as entertain honest discussion about who is part of the problem and who is part of a solution. 

Until management, executives and business owners take this critical area of organizational analysis and organizational change serious and are willing to make hard and unpopular people-related decisions there will continue to be far more tales of organizational change failures than tales of organizational change successes. 

The bottom line of this critical area of management practice is simply this.  For every workweek that an organization that is rot with dysfunction is allowed to proceed unchallenged, it takes almost 2.45 weeks of analysis, change and redirected managerial direction to correct the course.  Unfortunately, the far much easier decision to just accept the status quo is made.  The status quo acceptance reality further erodes quality, cost structures, productivity, profitability, employee retention and attempts at innovation and change.  Many adversaries to honest organizational diagnosis and organizational change write off change initiatives as disruptive to synchronous workplace processes. 

With objective education and insight into the benefits of objective organizational diagnosis, why change is inevitable, why innovation and change is important and why it is resisted by the masses, the business-destructive phenomena we can now recognize, as “protection of the status quo” it becomes easier to understand and overcome.

The initial steps to taking control of the workplace from “status quo groups are:

Engage a trusted and objective manager or consultative resource to make an in-depth and expedited organizational study and diagnosis as to the strengths, weaknesses and obstacles to success of the organization. 

Be prepared to objectively study an organizational chart inclusive of levels of compensation being earned by all employees to truly digest what each respective employee’s true contribution is regardless of relationships and perceptions. Then ask the organizational analysis professional to give you a proposed organizational chart with a “model” of a far more efficient organization.  You most often are surprised to find duplicated efforts, unproductive or overstaffed areas, over-compensation instances and employees with ambiguous positions and accountabilities on your current chart.

Be willing to entertain and support organizational changes that can look like a dismantling of certain aspects of the organization.  Sometimes an entire department must be reorganized to eradicate the sub-cultures or dismantle mini-organizations within key departments.

Be willing to sever the employee-employer relationship with those who are identified as overt organizational liabilities rather than assets.  (Remember – there are civil, humanistic and dignity-protecting discharge methodologies.  Separations can be done lawfully and be completely defensible.  (We can cover more “employee at will doctrine” information in part two of this series). 

Ask yourself this question.  Do those who have caused organizational and economic harm to your bottom line really deserve to keep working for you?

Be willing to infuse the organization with replacement talent.  Bear in mind that new talent may cost more however, is a much better bargain than a lower salary, which draws resources and life from the organization.  However, bear in mind that it takes fewer replacements to replace organizationally disruptive “status quo protectants” who may have been productive only 30% of the time.

Be willing to do what ever it takes to assure resistance to change, protection of the status quo and counter-productive and damaging workplace relationships do not ever become entrenched in your workplace again.

Why is it easier for an outsider to better diagnose your organization?  Because sometimes you cannot see the forests because of the trees.  A fresh perspective is usually the only way.  Besides, many management, executives and business owners would argue that they are really not qualified to study employee and organizational behavior, productivity or conduct objective analysis of counter-productive employees and if they did, they haven’t the extra time.   To this, I agree.

More organizational performance and human capital strategies to follow in monthly articles.

About the author

R. Scott “Bob” Drogus, PHR, BSHRM is a seventeen year experienced corporate, divisional and plant-level Human Resources, Labor/Employee Relations, Labor Negotiator, Union-free Defense Strategist, Continuous Improvement Process Facilitator, Strategic Planning Process Facilitator and Senior Staff-level Manager.  Throughout his career, Bob held senior level leadership positions with five domestic and two domestic/international companies, with the largest employing 89,000 employees throughout 71 countries.  He currently resides in the Midwest.  At the present, he assists heavy industry and metals companies identify management, operations, technical and executive talent and is developing a revolutionary and innovating software driven business performance system.