Upload
bhargavi-iyer-r
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/4/2019 CS-2007-Henkel
1/4
casestudyVolume 2, Issue 3, 2007
All content copyright 2005-2008 Denison Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved. l www.denisonculture.com l Page 1
Turning Results into Action: Action Planning at Henkel
What makes a company successful? How canattitude, conduct and actions be molded into a
coherent, perormance-enhancing corporate culturethat delivers success to shareholders, stakeholdersand customers? These are important questionsor any company but or Henkel, the answers tothese questions are particularly important becauseo the large role that corporate culture plays within
Henkels operations. Founded in 1876, Henkel- A Brand like a Friend is a Fortune Global 500
company headquartered in Dusseldor, Germany.With more than 52,000 employees worldwide, it isa leader in three strategic business areas that arededicated to making peoples lives easier, better
and more beautiul: 1) Home Care, 2) PersonalCare, and 3) Adhesives, Sealants, and Surace
Treatment. In over 125 countries, people trustHenkels brands and technologies. From Dial soapto Purex laundry detergent and Duck brandduct tape, Henkel brands are part o everyday lie.
Although the Henkel o 2007 is a ar cry rom its
origins as a amily-owned business, it continuesto be signicantly infuenced by amily roots. Thesignicance o the culture that has developedover the decades is clearly expressed in the rmlyestablished corporate principle: We preserve the
tradition o an open amily.
An integral part o Henkels success has beenthe value they have placed on the attitudesand opinions o their employees. Employeesurveys have been a regular eature within the
Henkel corporate environment since the 1980s;previous projects assessed employees attitudes,satisaction, and identication with the company.
These initiatives provided useul inormation orHenkel, but over time, problems arose withintheir employee survey eorts. The survey eorts
addressed so many dierent issues that employeesdeveloped high expectations or extensive andtangible change. The changes that were introduced
were regarded asinsignicant and later
survey results revealedan impression that notmuch had happened, andemployees becamediscouraged rom participating in uture surveys.In addition, it became increasingly apparent thatsurveying employee satisaction, while havinginherent value, did not acilitate an understanding o
the actors that drive the success o a corporation its cultural character. Henkel needed to know morethan merely the level o satisaction o its employeeHenkel needed to answer two questions: Whatdrives success? What cultural elements need to bimproved in order to improve perormance?
The search or a suitable system to measure thecultural drivers o success within a corporationled Henkel to the Denison Organizational CultureSurvey (DOCS). Henkel was looking or a culture
tool that used benchmarks as an integral part oits employee surveys and could be executed with
relative ease and within short intervals. AdditionallyHenkel realized that the company as a whole wouldneed to adopt a proactive approach to address theproblems identied in the survey and that it wouldbe necessary to create concrete action plans.
In 2003, all management levels in Henkel completethe DOCS -- a population around 7,500 worldwide
There were several clear messages rom the results
First, they showed a perceived lack o knowledge othe Henkel strategy. In addition, Henkel managers
were not suciently aware o the Vision and Valueso the Henkel Group. The results also indicatedthat Henkel employees wanted closer cooperationacross departmental boundaries.
Managers received the results or their department
to share with their employees. This allowed them
8/4/2019 CS-2007-Henkel
2/4
All content copyright 2005-2008 Denison Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved. l www.denisonculture.com l Page 2
to identiy potential areas or urther improvementand to develop action plans. Henkel recommendedeedback and discussion beginning with theollowing questions:
- What are the predominant patterns in the surveyresults?
- How do these results t with your own perceptiono the organization?
- What conclusions might be drawn rom the data
with respect to our strategic objectives?- What are the specic deciencies that need to beaddressed so that we may achieve our goals andtargets?
Feedback workshops were organized in order to
discuss the survey results and action plans werecreated to address the changes and improvementssuggested by the survey. Specically, the groups
discussed reasons or the low scores in thevarious areas, drew their conclusions and, whereappropriate, recommended action steps to address
these issues. Approximately 470 action steps werecreated to address the problem areas identiedby the DOCS. O these 470 action steps, 47%were involved with Henkels Strategy, Vision and
Values, 25% were involved with Cross-divisional andCross-unctional Cooperation, 19% were involved
with Customer Focus, and 9% were involved withTeamwork and Cooperation.
The second survey, conducted in November 200
showed many improvements. Results or Henkeloverall showed improvements in all areas except
Team Orientation (see Figure 1). The signicantimprovements in Mission refected the intensivediscussions held ater the rst survey and theintense communication o the Henkel Vision in th
business sectors. Signicant improvements alsooccurred in Coordination & Integration and CreatChange.
The benet o action planning was also illustratedby improvements in dierent parts o the organiza
tion. For example, Business Unit 1 was low in twMission indexes (i.e., Strategic Direction & Intent,
Vision) and Consistency indexes (i.e., Coordinatio
Integration, Core Values). Specic action plans wdeveloped and recorded or several dierent coutries and departments within this unit. Within eac
o these countries and departments, action plansBusiness Unit 1 targeted anywhere rom one to areas or improvement including Core Values, Codination and Integration, Vision and Mission. Moso these action plans urther specied around threcourses o action that would be taken to improve
NANANA
NA
NA
NANANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
External Focus
Internal Focus
Flexible Stable
73
64
67 54
63
39
50
57
82
44 57
44Beliefs and
Assumptions
NANANA
NA
NA
NANANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
External Focus
Internal Focus
Flexible Stable
75
63
70 59
72
47
63
61
83
54
66
59
Beliefs andAssumptions
Figure 1 = Henkel Overall 2003 to 2004
2003 2004
N = 4531 N = 6972
8/4/2019 CS-2007-Henkel
3/4
All content copyright 2005-2008 Denison Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved. l www.denisonculture.com l Page 3
Figure 2 = Business Unit 1each area, or example, enact cross-di-visional job rotation and holding weeklycurrent aairs meetings. Dening action-
able plans within many dierent countriesand departments had an eect on drivingchange or the broader business unit asa whole (See Figure 2). As a result, Unit 1saw a large improvement in their scores
rom 2003 to 2004, especially in Core
Values and Coordination and Integration.n contrast, Business Unit 2 recorded ewplans ater the 2003 survey and conse-quently saw little change, and in somecases, even decreased in scores on the
2004 survey (see Figure 3). This reinorcedhe importance o recording and develop-ng specic action plans targeted to theevel o the organization where you wanto drive change.
The eects o action planning could alsobe seen at the country-level. Country Adeveloped country-level action plans thatocused on vision, values, and strategywhich resulted in a 76% increase in scoresn 2004 (see Figure 4). However, while a
arge number o action plans were denedor the broader geographic region (whichncluded Country B along with three othercountries), no plans were identied at thecountry-level or Country B which resultedn a decrease in Country Bs scores in
2004 (see Figure 5).
Taken together, these ndings suggesthat it is important to incorporate ac-ion planning within the survey processo bring about positive, tangible change.
The results o the 2004 survey indicatehat the greatest improvements betweenhe 2003 and 2004 surveys were in those
departments or levels that specicallyargeted a ew key areas or improvementand identied a ew courses o action that
would be taken to drive change. Thoseevels o the organization that did notrecord specic action plans generally didnot change to the same degree. It alsoappears that more was gained by devel-oping action plans at specic levels o
Figure 3 = Business Unit 2
Figure 4 = Country A
0
Business Unit 1
2003 2004
255075100 25 50 75 100
Gap Report
Involvement
68 88Empowerment 20
54 77Team Orientation 23
82 90Capability Development 8
Consistency
39 77Core Values 38
66 91Agreement 25
39 77Coordination & Integration 38
Adaptability
71 89Creating Change 18
78 91Customer Focus 13
87 94Organizational Learning 7
Mission
46 83Strategic Direction & Intent 37
61 88Goals & Objectives 27
40 82Vision 42
0
Business Unit 2
2003 2004
255075100 25 50 75 100
Gap Report
Involvement
48 65Empowerment 17
43 15Team Orientation 28
76 85Capability Development 9
Consistency
42 31Core Values 11
59 64Agreement 5
54 4Coordination & Integration 50
Adaptability
74 66Creating Change 8
62 90Customer Focus 28
78 80Organizational Learning 2
Mission
34 18Strategic Direction & Intent 16
40 58Goals & Objectives 18
38 24Vision 14
0
Country A
2003 2004
255075100 25 50 75 100
Gap Report
Involvement
64 92Empowerment 28
63 85Team Orientation 22
58 83Capability Development 25
Consistency
55 89Core Values 34
26 83Agreement 57
32 85Coordination & Integration 53
Adaptability
52 88Creating Change 36
66 85Customer Focus 19
72 87Organizational Learning 15
Mission
12 92Strategic Direction & Intent 80
52 90Goals & Objectives 38
9 88Vision 79
8/4/2019 CS-2007-Henkel
4/4
All content copyright 2005-2007 Denison Consulting, LLC All rights reserved. l www.denisonculture.com l Page 4
the organization than when actionplans were developed at broader
organizational levels. UsingBusiness Unit 1 as an example,when action plans were developedat specic levels within theorganization (e.g. Unit 1: Spain, Unit1: UK) not only did those specic
levels improve, but the eects othese plans also seemed to bubble-up and drive change at broaderorganizational levels. However, theeect does not appear to go bothways. Action plans developed at
broader organizational levels (e.g.an entire geographic region) didnot seem to trickle-down to impactmore specic levels (e.g. countrieswithin that region).
Aside rom these broad conclusionsabout the action planning process,Henkel also learned the value osystematically tracking the actionplanning process. In order toimprove action planning throughout
the organization, Henkel needed abetter understanding o the thingsthat worked and didnt work. Notonly was it necessary to improve
upon how action plans are trackedbut also to track how or i planswere implemented, what thetimerames were, how the changeprocess was communicated andwho was involved.
Driven by a desire to ensure thatall areas o the organization see
improvement over time, Henkel began using The Denison ActionPlanner: A Dynamic Tool or Implementing Change, ater the
2006 survey. The Denison Action Planner is designed to translatesurvey results into action by ensuring that the important aspectso the action planning process are easily recorded, monitoredand summarized. A Web-based tool, the Denison Action Plannerallows or easy communication and collaboration throughout thechange process rom initial brainstorming to selecting areas o
ocus, and tracking the implementation o actionable items. Usingaction planning best practices, this tool helps ensure that thechange process is successul and allows organizations to betterunderstand how to make the process a success in the uture.
Related Resources
This case study is based on: Deni-son, D. R. & Schlue, R. (2007).Managing Corporate Culture atHenkel: Applying the Denison Orga-nizational Culture Survey. Gtersloh,Germany: Bertelsmann Stitung
Contact Information
Denison Consulting, LLC
121 West Washington, Suite 201
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Phone: (734) 302-4002
Fax: (734) 302-4023
Email: [email protected]
Copyright Information
Copyright 2005-2008 Denison Consulting, LLC
All Rights Reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction, in any manner, is prohibited
The Denison model, circumplex and survey are trade-
marks o Denison Consulting, LLC.
Version 1.0, October 2007
Figure 5 = Country B
0
Country B
2003 2004
255075100 25 50 75 100
Gap Report
Involvement
63 47Empowerment 16
52 44Team Orientation 8
39 20Capability Development 19
Consistency
40 38Core Values 2
60 48
Agreement12
35 43Coordination & Integration 8
Adaptability
45 34Creating Change 11
18 32Customer Focus 14
64 50Organizational Learning 14
Mission
48 30Strategic Direction & Intent 18
46 33Goals & Objectives 13
38 38Vision 0