Assess how the identity and ethos of a successful not-for-profit enterprise contribute to its success. To what extent can executives manage identity and ethos?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In ESM we explain enterprise identity by drawing the parallel with individual personality – how we
and others think of (construe) ourselves, and our qualities. Ethos is the prevailing conglomeration of
values and propositions about ‘what we believe’ and ‘how we do things’, often labelled as collective
culture. The much cited ‘In Search of Excellence’ by Peters and Waterman (1982) claimed to have
shown links between constructive cultures and performance outcomes based on longitudinal data,
but subsequent research casts doubt on the robustness of this claim. Whilst it is not difficult to
envision multiple actors indicative of dedicated attitudes and behaviours by staff, they are difficult
or costly to measure reliably. Performance outcomes would include financial results and other
measures such staff retention rates and client satisfaction, as employed in the ‘balanced scorecard’
approach (chapter 13). The obvious challenge is convincingly to demonstrate cause and effect
relationships, mindful of probable time lags in posited causal effects. However, even supposing that
managers can identify and pull on a few simple ‘levers’, explicit attempts to manage identity and
ethos in this way, have often been regarded as heavy-handed and ultimately counter-productive.
Further, it can be argued that to seek to manage only what can be measured with precision is
fundamentally misguided. To adapt the old adage that ‘[positive] actions speak louder than words’
probably applies here, meaning that the priority for enhancing identity and ethos should be to
achieve and recognise constructive behaviour in normal enterprise operations that supports mission
achievement.