Entropy was first defined in thermodynamic physics in 1843 and from there it entered the fields of psychology and sociology. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system. Entropy is the amount of energy that cannot be transferred from one system to another in the form of work. When people who are expected to serve the same purpose in an institution spend their energy on purposes other than work, problems arising from relationships and solving problems they create, this creates serious inefficiency. Richard Barrett called this situation “cultural entropy”. When it is called cultural entropy, there are four main reasons why employees’ energy in a work environment is directed towards problems arising from human relations or solving problems they create: Personal inconsistency, Inconsistency within the team, Inconsistency of values and Inconsistency between the institution’s mission and employees. In an institution that emphasizes innovation and creativity as an institutional value, hierarchy, bureaucracy and an oppressive management approach are dominant. An employee who comes to an institution where there is no tolerant management approach necessary for innovation and creativity, with the expectation of reflecting his/her creativity potential, leaves his/her soul and therefore his/her mind and emotions outside and comes to the workplace with only his/her body.
Entropy was first defined in thermodynamic physics in 1843 and from there it entered the fields of psychology and sociology. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system. Entropy is the amount of energy that cannot be transferred from one system to another in the form of work.
When people who are expected to serve the same purpose in an institution spend their energy on purposes other than work, problems arising from relationships, and solving problems they have created themselves, this creates serious inefficiency. Richard Barrett called this situation “cultural entropy”. According to the author, entropy is the ratio of unproductive (inefficient) actions and activities within the institution to the energy spent.
Just like in physics, entropy increases as disorder increases in corporate life. In this case, the amount of useful energy decreases and the amount of useless energy, in other words, entropy, increases. Again, to give an example from physics, when a fluid substance is heated, the molecular movements become irregular and energy is lost. The closest example of this energy loss in business life is the entropy experienced by employees who gossip during lunch or during a cigarette break, when they return to work and are unable to start working and being productive immediately.
When it is called cultural entropy, there are four main reasons why employees’ energy in the workplace is directed to solving problems arising from human relations or problems they have created themselves.
1) Personal inconsistency
If there is no consistency between the values expressed by employees and their behaviors, frequent conflicts are inevitable. If inconsistency between values and behaviors is widespread, especially among managers, it is out of the question for employees to trust their managers. In such a case, employees spend a significant part of their time gossiping. In this case, it is naturally a dream to expect managers to be respected and to have an effect on their subordinates.
2) Intra-team inconsistency
The inconsistency of the values expressed regarding rules, regulations, ways and methods of doing business and the behaviors in practice causes conflict and grouping within the team. Because if team members do not comply with the rules they have determined among themselves or have previously stated that they will comply with, no one has any respect for each other.
For example, if “justice” and “respect for people” are mentioned in an institution’s value system, promotions should be made accordingly. Similarly, if “openness” is a value, participants in meetings do not censor themselves in order to express what their managers approve of and not to speak about what they do not approve of.
If there is “respect” among group values; this value requires behaviors such as everyone listening to each other in meetings, not interrupting, not having separate conversations among themselves, not talking on their mobile phones, not sending messages, not dealing with their e-mails on their computers.
3) Inconsistency of values
Inconsistency of values occurs in two cases. The first is when there is an inconsistency between the personal values of individuals and the values of the majority of team members or employees of the institution. The second is when there is a difference between the valid institutional value and the desired institutional values.
An example of the first situation is the contradiction that a person who wants to live and work by focusing on their personal needs in an institution where work is centered on business needs will encounter.
The second example is when hierarchy, bureaucracy and an oppressive management approach dominate in an institution that emphasizes innovation and creativity as corporate values. An employee who comes to an institution where there is no tolerant management approach necessary for innovation and creativity, with the expectation of reflecting his/her creative potential, leaves his/her soul and therefore his/her mind and emotions outside, and comes to the workplace with only his/her body.
In such a case, harmony cannot be achieved between those who adopt the hierarchy and power-based management approach that is valid in the workplace and those who do not, and therefore conflict and grouping are inevitable. In this case, employees put their personal interests above departmental interests in order to protect themselves, or they do not mind departmental interests taking precedence over company interests.
4) Inconsistency between the institution’s mission and employees
This situation is seen when there is a difference between the reason for existence and basic motivations of the employees and the reason for existence and sense of meaning of the institution and the majority of the employees. Such a situation makes it difficult for employees to focus on work and business results, and makes it impossible to be wholeheartedly devoted.
For example, a manager who aims to achieve profitability and overwhelming superiority over competitors in the short term; They may find it useless and even ridiculous to enter into strategic partnerships that will make a difference in society. They see the resource demands of those who develop projects in this direction as wasteful or the training programs suggested for the development of employees as unnecessary. For example, one of the written values of such an institution that we had the opportunity to work with for a short time was “to contribute to the development of employees”. However, the family that held the management did not hesitate to stop the entire development project upon a change in the top management.
When the goals of the institution and the goals of the individuals working do not coincide, it is not possible to focus the energy of the employees in the same direction. Internal harmony in an institution occurs with the existence of shared common values, and only in such a case can it be possible for the employees to focus on the goals of the institution. When the energy of the employees is used in this way, trust prevails in the relationships of the employees, and this creates a strong internal harmony within the institution. Thus, it is possible to reflect the potential that will create synergy in life.
According to Richard Barret, there are four main reasons for cultural entropy in a business environment. These are; lack of internal harmony, lack of unity of focus, uncertainty of goals and lack of trust in human relations in the business environment. The emergence of such a situation in an institution reduces the institution’s resistance to threats originating from competition and makes it difficult for the group to act collectively by uniting and taking responsibility.
Values in Crisis
Employees in a strong institution with a common value unity take action in the face of a threat, assume responsibility and, like ordinary citizens who volunteer to fight against occupying forces during a war, put their personal interests and goals to the background. On the other hand, in institutions without such a value system, when faced with a threat originating from competition and the realization that the institution is in a difficult situation, instead of taking responsibility and fighting, all employees try to throw themselves out of the institution by going to job search websites, just like those who want to escape from a sinking ship rushing to the lifeboats, and they think that this is professionalism.
However, the primary culprit of this situation is not the employees, but the managers who fail to grasp the importance of the common value system. Cultural entropy in an institution not only causes the energy of the employees to be used in a way that is useless for purposes other than the institution’s goals, but also reduces the quality of life of the employees. Gossip and “avoidance” behaviors resulting from working in a low-trust environment prevent the employee from reflecting their potential in life. It creates a feeling of frustration and uselessness. In order to prevent cultural entropy, instead of complaining about and blaming employees, managers need to take responsibility and take action to manage the corporate culture.
In order to make a radical change in the corporate culture of a company, it is first necessary to transform the belief systems, values and behaviors of those at the top of the management level. Training is one of the steps to be taken to correct the deficiencies in an institution and to ensure development. When those who participate in such training cannot find an environment that will implement and support what they have learned, they expect change from everyone else, including their own managers.
Conclusion
If the top manager and those directly subordinate to him cannot model the values and behaviors that will help create a corporate culture focused on high performance, the expected change cannot occur. Therefore, the transformation required for change programs or company mergers starts from the top of the institution and includes everyone, not just middle and lower level employees.
Ref: Building a Values-Driven Organization, R. Barrett, Butterworth- Heinemann, 2006
Prof. Dr. Acar Baltaş
https://kaynakbaltas.com/genel/degerler-hayata-nasil-gecer/
