Working paper for Organisational Character Group

Please find attached the latest thinking from the Organisational Character Group: working paper (first draft). These are working documents, thoughts and views are welcomed.

This entry was posted in Character, The Melbourne Mandate. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Working paper for Organisational Character Group

  1. Pingback: The Melbourne Mandate Draft statement | The Melbourne Mandate

  2. Pingback: The Melbourne Mandate | The Melbourne Mandate

  3. Interesting. A very interesting read i must say. Congratulations for this 1st draft.

  4. Comments on: Defining Organisational Character: Global Alliance, September 2012.
    David Phillips FCIPR October 2012

    Vision/Mission. Comprise a set of cultural tokens forming a nexus of values which the organisation needs to be able to share in order to create the social group, the ‘organisation’.

    There is a cultural token that is require and needs to be understood as being the mission to survive, grow and prosper to meet the vision.

    Articulating the tokens and values expressed as Vision and Mission is how organisations build relationships (relationships are formed in a mutually held n nexus of values).

    Re-legitimising purpose can be an activity that articulates new values to confirm or re-structure relationships based on a changed set of mutually owned, understood and valued values.

    Values shared between organisations and between organisations and value owners (but, though recognised may not always have to be supported by value owners – the whole idea of ‘stakeholder is a flawed 20th century, pre-internet and divisive concept – can we drop it).

    Support is a matter of degree, at a moment in time and under specific circumstances. Asking more of ‘support’ smacks of Oligarchy. It cannot be sustained as an absolute and has to be expressed to recognise the flexibility of ‘support’.

    We can gain considerable insights into values using discourse analysis to extract semantic concepts. In many respects semantic concepts behave (even appear) like personal values and in context. This means that Public Relations can operate, evolve and develop in a very structured way using this kind of methodology. .

    Once we are aware that relationships are constructed upon a mutual coincidence of a nexus of values, our understanding of assets such as leadership can be much more forensic. We can thereby dispense with the notion of stakeholders and think, instead of value-holders. Thus leadership is developed through the exercise of PR skills in the evolution of mutuality of interest in values.

    This may require those with the capability to create values that have appeal to cultural, social, environmental values of others and who can depend on the practitioner to bring capabilities to bear to contribute to a nexus of values to meet organisational needs.

    We have the tools to do this including the aforementioned semantic tools.

    As we see increasing levels of radical transparency. it is obvious that organizational culture has to be fundamental to existence. As we move further down the route of internet driven transparency (and as the internet of things and the semantic web intrude into the value sets of organisations), culture has to become of mutual interest between all value holders both fleetingly and over the life of the organisation.

    The technical skills are relevant only insofar as they are the means of the day and are not, in themselves forever powerful.

    Newspapers, Mayspace and Facebook have been held up to be even more powerful than society. We now see that this was a set of flawed values used by these institutions and are probably no longer possible as a device for wielding power (who, for example, believes in the long term survival of Facebook?).

    I am not sure how a practice of PR can promote organizational character to stakeholders – value holders may be – stakeholding is far too prescriptive.

    Values cannot be used as an enforcement device or contract. In the end (over time in some cases) it is the values of an organisation (religion, state, culture) that are the key. Mutual knowledge of, common (mutual) belief and acceptance of values is the driver.

    I like the attempt at definition of values and think they are pretty good.

    We can test this hypothesis at the brave university that is prepared to use devices like latent semantic analysis as the means to identify the nature, role and significance of values as between individuals and organisations within a public relations theoretical framework. So far, I have failed to find one!

    The research by Bruno Amaral (see Bled) is a very good starting point.

    I dislike the spidergram because it smacks of 20th century ‘marks out of ten’ for supporting my perspectives. (e.g. Committed to Quality Care is MY Idea of How to be Good). I ask simply whose values are they?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Security Code: