CS-2007-Henkel

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


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


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



Consistency

42 31Core Values 11

59 64Agreement 5


Adaptability




Mission



38 24Vision 14

0

Country A

2003 2004

255075100 25 50 75 100

Gap Report

Involvement

64 92Empowerment 28



Consistency

55 89Core Values 34

26 83Agreement 57


Adaptability




Mission



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



Consistency

40 38Core Values 2

60 48

Agreement12


Adaptability




Mission



38 38Vision 0

CS-2007-Henkel

Documents

Transcript of CS-2007-Henkel