Assessing Organizational Culture

I didn’t fully understand organizational culture until my assignment as a Tac officer at the United States Military Academy (USMA). During our graduate studies, prior to assuming responsibilities as Tac officers, we used Edgar Schein’s organizational culture concepts as the basis for our learning. I certainly gained an appreciation from these courses how important organizational culture is for the leader to consider when taking the helm!

In the past two blogs, I’ve shared a few ways serving on the staff at West Point developed me as a leader. In this final installment, I’ll share excerpts from my culminating research project of the Tactical Officer Education Program (TOEP). This thesis explores organizational culture of a USMA cadet company.

The assignment was well intentioned, each Tac conducted an academic year long observation of a cadet company’s organizational culture. We then analyzed it through our newly developed lens attained from graduate course work and made recommendations for improvement.

Making this capstone assignment even more beneficial, the academic year company under observation was intended to be the company the Tac would assume responsibility for. This would give the officer a head start on getting to know the organization and what made it tick.

Of course, in practice nothing works out quite according to plan. First, it is debatable how accurate any of the observations really are. USMA cadets are incredibly clever and also students of Edgar Schein’s organizational culture theories. The interviews and surveys are probably biased, especially since the participants have a pretty good idea the interviewer will be the new Tac!

Second, the tools used for analysis are rudimentary at best. The surveys and interview questions reflect only a years’ worth of academic background in the topic. A true academic researcher would probably grimace upon reading the study and questionable conclusions. That being said, the ultimate purpose of the TOEP program was to prepare Tac officers to lead a cadet company on their developmental journey, not create expert researchers.

Lastly, the company I observed ended up not being the company I assumed responsibility for! Regardless, especially as someone who did not attend USMA as an undergraduate, this academic exercise provided great insight into cadet life and was a very useful endeavor.

This study marked the end of a very rigorous Army Advanced Civil Schooling graduate program and I was a better leader for it. As valuable as completing this study was, as I mentioned in the first blog in this series, it paled in comparison to the leader development I received on the job serving as a Tac. This week’s blog featured pic includes a few of those great cadets that I was proud to serve with.  

Excerpt from “An Assessment of the Culture of USMA Academic Year Company D4”

Each of the 32 academic year cadet companies at the United States Military Academy exhibits its own organizational culture and conducts its own socialization. Part of the uniqueness of this institution is that it is made up of 32 very similar but distinct cultures. These cultures remain in a constant change due to the turnover in leadership, both cadet chain of command and “greensuiter” cadre.

Strong institutional values and norms from the academy ensure that companies do not change excessively and evolve into counter cultures within the corps but rather create 32 slightly differing sub cultures. But what makes one company different from the other? What exactly is the organizational culture of an academic year company?

To properly answer these questions, one must immerse themselves in the culture by observing hours of daily activities, interactions, and the environment of the company.

The academic year company D4, commonly referred to as the “Dukes”, was chosen to participate in this study. In order to accomplish the task, 20 hours of observation were completed and included both a general look at the institution in which the Dukes exist and more specific observations of the company itself.

The company offered its full support of the study and participants seemed genuinely enthused to be a part of it. Edgar Schein’s definition of culture and three “levels of culture” as described in his book Organizational Culture and Leadership are used to describe culture for the purposes of this study and make up the basis for the conclusions.  

After observing the Dukes for 20 hours, it was found to have a culture that’s values include individual achievement and maintaining a haze free environment. The Dukes contain no significant organizational structures or “artifacts,” and it upholds the basic assumption of individual respect by striving to leave each other alone.

The Dukes don’t have significant artifacts to provide structure to the organization, and the basic underlying assumption of the organization is that you’ll be left alone to pull your own weight. Contrary to what many of its members may feel, this in itself indicates a very well defined culture.

Many of the younger cadets mistakenly feel the lack of social events and camaraderie is a lack of culture. They don’t realize that the very fact they recognize that “the Dukes are an academic company that doesn’t haze” indicates that it has a developed culture.

Unlike the younger cadets, the cows and firsties (juniors and seniors) recognize this more easily, but also identified the organization as undergoing change. Whether the catalysts for these changes are the wishes of the new Tac team or influences from changes in the corps, cannot be easily identified without comparing the Dukes with one or more companies from throughout the corps.

The biggest challenge the Dukes face is that it possesses a changing culture but the members do not understand why. Being noted as the top academic company out of 32 for the past three years is an admirable accomplishment. Duke culture undoubtedly contributed to this achievement and Dukes are understandably proud of the title.

It is uncertain whether the ongoing changes to Duke culture will enable them to retain its relatively long title as the best academic company. If cultural changes fail to enable the organization to achieve this title again and doesn’t adequately re-establish its values as an academic company that doesn’t haze, the culture of the organization could change and resultantly, so could its performance.

Cadets must understand there is a culture present and functioning within the Dukes. Training with the cadet chain of command to discuss the values, artifacts and assumptions of the Dukes could help “get the word out” that what younger cadets think is a poorly cohesive unit that lacks esprit de corps, is in fact an organization with well-defined values of individual achievement and “leaving cadets alone” to accomplish their assigned tasks.

If company leadership (cadet and greensuiter) deems that the values need to change, then the members of the organization are due an explanation as to why and how. Sometimes an eagerness to fix the unbroken could hurt an organization more than help it.

The single biggest threat to the Duke culture is its lack of significant artifacts to include organizational practices. With the addition of some well thought out organizational practices and structured operations to pass down to future members of the Dukes, the organization can ensure that it retains its core values and continues to succeed academically in the future.

If you’ve enjoyed this excerpt, check out my book Writing to Lead for the complete work, available HERE!

Next week I’ll transition from Leading to Living with a look at one of my favorite pastimes, fishing!

The views, opinions and biases expressed in this blog are the authors and do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.

Use the links in the about section below to follow on Facebook or Instagram. Subscribe for emails to receive updates on the latest weekly blog at www.normspivey.com!